Policy Manual

1. Introduction

1.1 Mission

Mission Statement of the National Parole Board

The National Parole Board, as part of the criminal justice system, makes independent, quality conditional release and pardon decisions and clemency recommendations. The Board contributes to the protection of society by facilitating, as appropriate, the timely integration of offenders as law-abiding citizens.

Core value 1

We contribute to the attainment of a just, peaceful and safe society.

Core value 2

We respect the inherent potential and dignity of all individuals and the equal rights of all members of society.

Core value 3

We believe that the contribution of qualified and motivated individuals is essential to promoting the achievement of the Parole Board's Mission.

Core value 4

We are committed to openness, integrity and accountability in the execution of our mandate.

1.2 Conditional Release Decision- Making

Purpose

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) requires that the Executive Committee adopt policies relating to Board reviews and that members of the Board make conditional release decisions in accordance with these policies (para.151 (2) and ss.105(5)).

Introduction

The CCRA states that the National Parole Board's primary mandate is:

The Board's decision-making policies are based on the following principles flowing from this primary mandate:

• Protection of society is the paramount consideration in any conditional release decision.
• Supervised release increases the offender's potential for successful reintegration and, thereby, contributes to the long-term protection of society.
• Restrictions on the freedom of the offender in the community must be limited to those necessary and reasonable to protect society and to facilitate reintegration.

Information standards

Quality release decision-making requires information that is comprehensive, reliable, and persuasive. The CCRA requires the Board to consider all available information that is relevant to a case (para. 101(b)).

The NPB and CSC endeavour to ensure that all relevant information is available to allow Board members to assess the offender's risk of re-offending, that is to say, the readiness of an offender to reintegrate as a law-abiding citizen. When reviewing an offender's file, Board members may determine that, for example,

• specific information, including source documentation, which could have an impact on the decision, is not on file;
• the information provided lacks the analysis needed to assess whether or not the offender has made positive change and/or the information is overly reliant on the offender's self-reporting;
• the release plan does not include a review or an analysis of essential information (such as, confirmation of accommodation, the start dates of programs, the resources available to address the offender's risk to re-offend) or the community assessment is inadequate.

If this occurs, then the Board shall:

• ask correctional authorities to obtain the information, if possible, before any required hearing, or before the decision is rendered.

In cases where the required information is not available, the Board may:

• postpone the hearing/review, at the request of the offender; or
• adjourn the review to obtain further information; or
• deny the release and inform the correctional authority and the offender that the case will be reviewed after the information is received.

In certain cases (for example, in the case of an offender from another country) historical information may not be available and decisions will have to be made on the basis of the specific information correctional authorities have been able to gather and their assessments of the offender while under sentence.

The Board also considers relevant information from victims in its assessment of the offender. Such information may relate to the nature and circumstances of the offence including the extent of harm to the victim, previous anti-social or deviant attitudes or behaviours, community contacts, release plans, or any conditions of release. It may also help the Board in assessing the offender's attitude regarding the impact of the offence and his/her attitude toward others.

Relevant information from communities or groups is also taken into account. Board members will assess the extent to which these communities or groups are willing to support the offender in the community.

Implementation Date

2006-05-31

2. General

2.1 Assessment for Pre-Release Decisions – Decision-Making Criteria and Process

Authority

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.102

Purpose

To describe the criteria for assessing if the offender presents an undue risk to society and the process for pre-release decisions.

Introduction

In deciding on any conditional release, the Board shall make a thorough assessment of all relevant aspects of the case to determine whether or not release of the offender will constitute an undue risk to society and whether release of the offender will contribute to the protection of society by facilitating his/her reintegration into society as a law-abiding citizen. The determination of undue risk is based on an assessment of the offender's likelihood of re-offending taking into consideration the nature and severity of the offence that could be anticipated should the offender re-offend.

This assessment process is required for all pre-release decisions, whether it is an initial decision, the expansion of a release program, or the continuation of a release program. The Board members will consider:

• the offender's criminal and social history, and his/her functioning and attitude on any previous conditional release;
• the functioning and attitude of the offender during incarceration indicating a modification of the offender's behaviour, as well as professional reports and relevant actuarial scales; and the concrete results and treatment gains of interventions as acknowledged by correctional authorities and others, such as, Parole Officers, Primary Workers in Women's institutions, treatment personnel, the Institutional Elders, Native Liaison Personnel, LifeLine, and In-Reach workers;
• the release plan and the community management strategy.

Board members may then grant or authorize a conditional release if, in their opinion, the offender will not, by re-offending, present an undue risk to society. While Board members are not bound by previous decisions, they shall consider the reasons for previous decisions.

For some offenders, no special interventions will be required beyond the control and support that supervision in the community offers.

Review process

Assessing Criminal and Social History

Board members, in studying all relevant aspects of the offender's case, shall review and analyze all relevant information including:

• The offender's criminal and social history, including marital and family relationships, the assessment of the offender's identified needs areas at the time of incarceration, and any historical and societal conditions that may have affected the offender, the role of alcohol and/or drugs relating to the criminal behaviour.
• Any systemic or background factors that may have contributed to the offender's involvement in the Criminal Justice System, such as, the effects of substance abuse in the community, racism, family or community breakdown, unemployment, income, and a lack of education and employment opportunities, dislocation from his/her community, community fragmentation, dysfunctional adoption and foster care, and residential school experience.
• Issues surrounding employment. For some offenders, subsistence activities will have to be considered; for other offenders, child-care issues will have to be considered.
• The nature of the current offence(s) and any precipitating factors, as identified in police reports, reports from tribal police; pre-sentence reports and other reports, such as, community reports, Native Court-Worker reports, community justice committee reports, etc.
• Previous breaches of supervision conditions and performance on any earlier conditional releases, including those under a previous sentence, any record of being at large without authorization or of escape attempts.
• If the offender's conditional release was previously revoked, what the offender did to modify the risk factors that led to any revocation and what benefit was derived during the period of re-incarceration.
• The inventory of violent behaviour over the years, including threats, intimidation, possession and use of weapons, and suicide attempts.
• Issues surrounding other associations as they relate to the possibility of re-offending, such as identification as a member or associate of a criminal gang or of organized crime.
• Family Violence
  
  Any indication of violence toward, or abuse of, family members, and/or of people in relationships of intimacy, dependency, or trust, or those who may be otherwise vulnerable including the various factors often associated with family violence:
  • death or weapons threats
  • substance abuse problems
  • recent threats of suicide
  • employment problems
  • past sexual assaults
  • attitudes that minimize or support family violence
  • personality disorder
  • previous stalking and/or disregard of "no contact" orders
  • escalating violence
  • recent relationship changes (separation, divorce)
  • intergenerational history of family violence
• Information relating to performance and behaviour while under any prior sentence.
• Mental health status as it affects the likelihood of future criminal acts.
• The reasons and recommendations of the sentencing judge and any other information from the trial or the sentencing hearing.
• Victim information such as Victim Impact Statements given to Crown Attorneys, police reports about the nature of the offence, and Victim Statements or other information that victims or their families provide directly to the Board or correctional authorities.
• Information from provincial authorities about previous criminal behaviour, periods of incarceration and conditional releases including records related to a young person and any available information about criminal activity that led to admission to the mental health system.
• Information about performance in school. Information from community contacts and family members about anti-social behaviour, attitudes, values, and associates.
• Psychological and/or psychiatric assessments. The requirements for such professional assessments are detailed in the policy on psychological and psychiatric assessments (2.3).
• For offenders other than women and Aboriginal people, ratings on the SIR scale (general statistical information about the risk of re-offending for a group of similar offenders) or other predictive assessment tools.

Assessing Institutional Behaviour and the Results of Interventions

Information considered when assessing institutional behaviour and the results derived from interventions includes:

• Offender's progress in addressing their correctional plan and identified needs.
• Evidence of measurable and observable change in attitude and behaviour as a result of incarceration, the results of participation in treatment and healing programs and the treatment gains, and/or other interventions that institutional and case management staff and any others attest have had a beneficial impact. Programs and interventions include, but are not limited to, substance abuse, violence and anger management, family violence, cognitive skills, educational upgrading, Elder counselling, Aboriginal and Women-centred programs, religious counselling, participation in cultural or other programming or interventions appropriate to the individual's needs.
• Professional reports of assessed degree of benefit and commitment with respect to participation in psychological and/or psychiatric treatment programs that address identified needs and treatment gains, including those relating to anti-social attitudes and behaviours, and other personality factors such as level of development, emotional and intellectual maturity, impulsiveness, self-regulation, and problem-solving skills. If a qualified person has identified a disorder that likely contributed to the offence, the offender must have benefited from interventions related to this disorder undertaken during incarceration.
• Institutional behaviour, in particular any violent incidents including information concerning continued involvement in criminal activities, such as, trafficking in, using, or importing drugs. Evidence of changes in behaviour or attitudes indicating a reduction or an increase in the possibility of re-offending. Evidence of an attitude of indifference to criminal behaviour and the impact on the victim.
• During current term of incarceration, reliable information of the offender's participation in activities organized by gang members or associates, and/or association with individuals identified as members of organized crime groups or criminal gangs.
• Information from the offender that indicates commitment to, and signs of, or motivation to, change. For example, a degree of understanding of the influence of historical and societal conditions on shaping behaviour; criminal behaviour and related factors; the gravity of the offence; acceptance of responsibility; the understanding of crime cycle indicators; relapse prevention; re-offending management skills, and acceptance of positive cultural values.

For some offenders, incarceration may result in positive change in attitude and behaviour.

Assessing the Release Plan and Community Management Strategies

Information considered when assessing the release plan and community management strategies includes:

• The type of release the offender has applied/is eligible for with particular attention to the release plan and whether or not it is consistent with CSC's community management strategy.
• Whether or not the release plan addresses the offender's identified needs. All details of any plan should be confirmed including, if applicable, bed space or place of residence, program or treatment availability and start dates, leave privileges on day parole, employment or training arrangements, etc. Programming or other interventions may be initiated or continued in the community to address the offender's needs.
• Additional support for the offender such as, church groups, circles of support, bridging programs, and other family members.
• The stressors/factors in the release environment that may increase the risk of re-offending and the offender's needs in relation to these factors.
• Information about the release community that was obtained from the police, the offender's family, sponsors, victims including the victims of family violence, Aboriginal Elders or tribal council members, leaders of ethnic communities and any other appropriate sources.
• The steps taken to control further offender aggression in family violence cases.
• Mental health status as it affects the protection of society and the offender's reintegration.
• Any restorative measures involving the community, victim, and/or offender.
• Whether placement of the offender in a residential facility or in the community at large will result in associations with other offenders with whom the offender has been involved in criminal activities. Such associations may include: as a member or associate of an organized crime group or criminal gang; co-convicted or family members.
• Requests from victims for release conditions considered necessary for their protection, for example, a "no contact condition".
• The CSC strategy for managing the offender in the community.
• Up-to date information on the deportation status of offenders who are foreign nationals.
• The conditions of release imposed through Regulations and whether or not special conditions may be necessary to assist in the management of the offender in the community and to reduce any chance of re-offending.
• The Aboriginal community's community plan for a Section 84.

Decision and reasons

On the basis of their review of the relevant information, the Board members will decide whether or not to release the offender. If the review is by way of a hearing, the offender is normally informed of the Board members' decision following their deliberation.

The written decision and reasons are the Board members' official record of the review process and will reflect the analysis that Board members have undertaken during the decision-making process. Board members must summarize, in language that is clear, concise, and understandable, their overall assessment of the offender, including any relevant information obtained orally during the hearing.

This summary must occur for all decisions, even where an existing period of conditional release is being continued unchanged for a short period, and must include:

• an analytical statement of all relevant aspects of the case, including those factors related to the risk to re-offend and the needs or other areas requiring intervention;
• the extent to which the offender has addressed those areas identified as requiring intervention, and whether or not there has been benefit to, or evidence of change in, the offender which would increase his/her potential for successful re-integration as a law-abiding citizen;
• an analysis and evaluation of the community management strategies;
• a concluding assessment of whether or not the release of the offender would constitute an undue risk to society; and
• any special condition(s) Board members deem reasonable and necessary for the protection of society and facilitating the successful reintegration into society of the offender, and the Board member's assessment and reasons for applying the condition(s).

In the event of dissenting votes, the views of each Board member must be documented as well as the reasons for the variance.

The reasons for the decision should not make reference to personal information about a third party.

Cross reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations S.161.

NBP Policy Manual:

2.2 Hallmarks of Quality Decision-Making

5.0 Special Conditions on Statutory Release

7.1 Release Conditions.

CSC Commissioner's Directives on Intake Assessment and Community Reintegration.

Implementation date

2006-05-31

2.1.1 Offenders with an Indeterminate Sentence, Dangerous Offenders and Dangerous Sexual Offenders

Legislative reference

Subsections 761.(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Purpose

To provide further guidance to Board members in the review of offenders serving an indeterminate sentence as a result of a dangerous offender or dangerous sexual offender designation.

Background

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that only the availability of parole to mitigate the sentence has made the imposition of indeterminate sentences acceptable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms1. The Court has upheld the validity of indeterminate detention when appropriate. An inmate's detention can be justifiably maintained for a lifetime if release continues to constitute an undue risk to the public.

Duty of the Board

The National Parole Board has extraordinary responsibilities in reviewing offenders with an indeterminate sentence which are emphasized by the fact that these offenders may not waive their parole reviews, although they may waive the hearing.

The parole review process for indeterminately sentenced offenders is expected to ensure the sentence is tailored to fit the circumstances of the individual offender.

1 Supreme Court of Canada: R v Lyons (1987) and Steele v Mountain Institution (1990)

In addition to the required pre-release criteria

Board members shall give particular attention to whether the specific needs of the individual have been fully investigated and identified. They shall consider whether case planning has been customized to tailor the sentence to fit the present circumstance of the individual offender, and whether whatever is possible has been attempted to prepare the offender for conditional release.

Board members shall consider all professional assessments and whether appropriate treatment has been offered to the inmate to meet his or her specific identified needs.

Board members shall inquire if every effort has been made to identify specific treatment interventions and/or programs that could be offered to the offender. When the offender has been incarcerated for a lengthy period of time, attention should be directed to

• whether the needs of the offender have changed, or
• more appropriate treatment / programs have been developed that may address those needs, and if they have been offered to the offender. Failure to accept treatment in later years must be viewed in the possible context of increased frustration on the part of the inmate due to the length and nature of incarceration, or the inappropriateness of the program to the needs of the offender.

The Board shall consider plans for additional programs or treatment proposed for the offender by the Correctional Service inside and/or outside of the institution with sufficient control to manage the risk which the offender may pose to the community.

Full consideration shall be given to traditional and non-traditional resources, where they would provide the elements determined to be necessary and appropriate.

Consideration must be given to assessing:

• What set of circumstances would support the inmate's reform and rehabilitation; and
• To what extent they are, in fact, available in the community.

The fact that the inmate may be untreatable or may have untreated problems unrelated to risk of reoffending does not compel a conclusion that the inmate cannot be manageable in the community.

Previous conditional release breaches should be reviewed in the context of the full case history. The nature of the violation and all the circumstances and reasonable explanations for its occurrence should be taken into account including length of incarceration and associated institutionalization. Consideration should be given to whether violations were solely or primarily adjustment problems.

Length of time served: the Supreme Court suggested that lengthy incarceration may serve in some cases as an indication that the inmate is no longer dangerous, and may be considered in assessing breaches of discipline and problems on conditional release.

Implementation Date

99/09/09

2.2 Hallmarks of Quality Decision- Making

Legislative Reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, section 102.

Purpose

To identify the hallmarks required to help the Board assess if the offender presents an undue risk to society and render quality decisions.

Introduction

The Board has a responsibility to promote a consistency in decision writing that reflects an analysis and assessment of all relevant aspects of the case, consistent with the ideas of openness, accountability and professionalism

The Board maintains a registry of its decisions, which is accessible to those who show, in writing, an interest in the case.

Hallmarks

A quality decision that:

• reflects the Board's commitment to the protection of the public, consistent with the principle of the least restrictive determination;
• reflects that an impartial consideration of the case was undertaken, consistent with the duty to act fairly;
• reflects all relevant aspects of the case, including the offender's patterns of behaviour;
• reflects a responsiveness to diversity;
• is based on comprehensive, reliable and persuasive information, and respects applicable legislation and the Board's decision making policies;
• is clear, concise and expressed in understandable language; and
• is documented in a way that:
  • briefly summarizes the Board members' analyses and assessments of relevant information, in particular, known risk indicators identified in the information received from the police, courts (crown and judge), correctional services, victims and the offender;
  • reflects an analysis and assessment of risk factors and needs areas, at the time of incarceration, while stressing the most serious offences and any substantive factors contributing to the offence pattern;
  • reflects an analysis and assessment of the offender's institutional behaviour and the concrete results and treatment gains acquired during intervention(s) which may have reduced the risk to reoffend; and
  • reflects an analysis and assessment of the behaviour and circumstances surrounding previous suspensions and revocations of conditional release; and
  • reflects an analysis and assessment of the release plans and community management strategies to be employed during supervision periods to address the offender's needs, and to manage the risk.

Implementation date

2006-05-31

2.3 Psychological and Psychiatric Assessments

Purpose

Professional assessments by psychologists and psychiatrists can provide critical information about the mental status of an offender, and about behavioural characteristics and other risk factors which can assist the members of the National Parole Board in making conditional release decisions. Consideration of such assessments is one element of the comprehensive analysis Board members must perform in reviewing a case and making a decision about the offender's risk factors and reintegration potential. This policy will establish the type of assessments required by the Board.

Psychologists provide a range of services including assessment, therapeutic intervention, crisis intervention and program development, delivery and evaluation. The primary role of psychiatrists is diagnosis of mental illness and the treatment of the acutely and sub-acutely mental ill.

Psychological Assessments

Psychological assessments may be completed for an offender at several points of the sentence. The need for a psychological assessment will be determined by behavioural characteristics of offenders, their criminal history, and features of the offence.

A. Intake psychological assessments

As of 1995, intake psychological assessments are required by the Correctional Service of Canada at intake screening, to identify criminogenic factors and develop a correctional treatment plan, for offenders meeting any of the following criteria:

• Situational adjustment problem – severe anxiety; withdrawn; panic; vulnerable and inadequate.
• Mental health – Axis 1 diagnosis1; prior psychiatric admission; current psychotropic medication.
• Suicide – prior attempts; current ideation; current plan.
• Self-mutilation – history of self-injury; current threats.
• Persistent violence – history of three or more convictions for a Schedule I offence.
• Gratuitous violence – excessive violence beyond that which is "required" to meet an end; or evidence of sadistic behaviour, torture.
• Sex offender – any history of convictions for sexually related offenses.
• High need offender – severe substance abuse; organicity; offenders with mental disability, social incompetence. Any combination of needs or a singe severe need (including difficulties relating to employment, marital/family, associates, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional and attitudes).

Offenders sentenced before 1995 were not subject to these criteria and may or may not have received a psychological assessment addressing such problems during their incarceration before referral, if required, for a pre-release assessment.

¹Axis 1 (Multiaxial system DSM III): Disorders usually first evident in infancy, childhood and adolescence. Includes such disorders as mental retardation, attention deficits and eating disorders (e.g. anorexia nervosa); organic mental disorders; substance-use disorders (e.g. alcohol, cocaine); schizophrenic disorders; paranoid disorders; affective disorders; anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders (e.g. hypochondriasis); dissociative disorders (e.g. multiple personalities). Source: T.Leis, T.Nicholalchuk and R.Menzies, "The Mentally Disordered Offender: Risk Assessment, Management, and Treatment".

B. Pre-release psychological assessments

Requirements

Psychological assessments will not normally be required for:

• provincial offenders; or
• offenders eligible for accelerated parole review.

Mandatory referral criteria all other offenders

• persistent violence;
• gratuitous violence;
• referrals for detention;
• conditional release reviews for offenders with indeterminate or life sentences;
• high risk sex offenders – those with two or more sexually related convictions; untreated or drop out; deviant arousal from phallometry (paraphilia); use of a weapon.

Discretionary referral criteria

Referrals will be initiated only when existing treatment summaries are not sufficient to assess progress in relation to the offender's correctional plan and/or community management strategies in the following cases:

• mental disorder;
• suicide risk (including institutional history of self-injury);
• high need (as above).

Currency of psychological assessments

A pre-release psychological assessment will be considered to be current for a period of two years.

Post treatment/program assessments

If there has been program participation, a further assessment will be required to address the influence of the program on the offender and the extent of change, if any, in the risk posed by the offender. This may be a post-treatment report completed by a psychologist, case management officer or program officer, if the issues of extent of change and risk are specifically addressed. Normally, following completion of intensive or intermediate treatment delivered or recommended by a psychologist, the Board will require a post-treatment assessment completed by a psychologist or certified treatment professional.

If, after two years the offender has not participated in any such programming, subsequent assessments may be updates of the initial pre-release assessment.

A more recent assessment will be required if the institutional behaviour of the offender has resulted in charges related to violent behaviour.

Psychiatric assessments

At least one psychiatric assessment is required for any offender with a life or indeterminate sentence. This may be a thorough assessment completed for the courts. Since psychiatric assessments address mental illness or disorder and mental capacity, such assessments will provide information to CSC on intervention strategies which are needed by the offender. Reports are required on the results of any psychiatric treatment interventions with respect to any impact on the risk presented by the offender.

A new psychiatric assessment is required for offenders with a life minimum or indeterminate sentence when they first apply for any type of conditional release other than a medical or compassionate escorted temporary absence. In the case of an offender assessed as mentally disordered and requiring treatment, this pre-release psychiatric assessment will be considered current until the offender participates in the recommended treatment. Another psychiatric assessment is not required for offenders who do not meet these criteria.

A psychiatric assessment will be obtained for any offender when recommended by a psychologist.

When a mental health condition which requires medication or professional intervention to reduce the risk posed by the offender has been identified, and the offender is non-compliant, a further report will not be required.

The Board shall be informed when an offender is taking medication which modifies behaviour. Information about the effect of the medication, the attitude of the offender to continuing use of the medication, and possible changes in the risk posed should the offender stop using the medication is required to assist in risk assessment.

Exceptions

In situations where the policy stipulates that a psychological assessment is required – but only a psychiatric assessment is available, the psychiatric assessment will satisfy the requirements of the policy, but not vice-versa.

In exceptional cases, the Board may ask for a new psychological or psychiatric assessment for a particular offender if they believe it is required. This situation could arise if there are conflicting assessments on the offender's file, or when specific information on the file leads the Board members to believe such an assessment is needed for decision-making purposes. Board members will give written reasons for making the request to identify the cause of their concern.

In rare instances, Board members may ask the Correctional Service of Canada to obtain a report from an independent external professional. Board members will give written reasons whenever outside professional reports are requested.

Effective date

April 1, 1995

2.4 Eligibilities

Life sentence – minimum (murder, 1st or 2nd degree, on or after July 26, 1976)

TYPE	ELIGIBILITY
Full parole	1st degree – 25 years* 2nd degree – 10 to 25 years, as determined by the judge Judicial review possible after 15 years
Day parole	3 years before PED
UTA	3 years before PED
ETA	any time, at the discretion of CSC and subject to approval of the Board (see TA policy). ETA's for medical reasons or in order to attend judicial proceedings or a coroner's inquest are exempt from NPB approval requirement.
Statutory release	not applicable

* Eligibility is calculated to include time spent in custody following arrest

Life sentence – minimum (murder or death commuted January 1, 1974 to July 26,1976)

TYPE	ELIGIBILITY
Full parole	10 to 20 years* Judicial review possible after 15 years
Day parole	3 years before PED
UTA	3 years before PED
ETA	any time, at the discretion of CSC
Statutory release	not applicable

*Eligibility is calculated to include time spent in custody following arrest(L'admissibilité se calcule en incluant la période d'incarcération depuis la date d'arrestation)

Life sentence – minimum (death not commuted by July 26,1976, becomes sentence for 1st degree murder)Peine d'emprisonnement à  perpétuité – peine minimale (une peine de mort non commuée au 26 juillet 1976 devient une peine pour meurtre au 1er degé)

TYPE	ELIGIBILITY
Full parole	25 years* Judicial review possible after 15 years
Day parole	3 years before PED
UTA	3 years before PED
ETA	any time, at the discretion of CSC
Statutory release	not applicable

* Eligibility is calculated to include time spent in custody following arrest

Life sentence – minimum (Young Offenders (under 18) / murder 1st and 2nd degree, sentenced on or after May 15, 1992)

TYPE	ELIGIBILITY
Full parole	5 to 10 years, as determined by judge*
Day parole	4/5th of PED
UTA	4/5th of PED
ETA	any time, at the discretion of CSC and subject to approval of the Board (see TA policy) ETA's for medical reasons or in order to attend judicial proceedings or a coroner's inquest are exempt from NPB approval requirement
Statutory release	not applicable

* Eligibility is calculated to include time spent in custody following arrest

Life sentence – maximum

TYPE	ELIGIBILITY
Full parole	7 years, or 10 years if Judicial determination pursuant to section 743.6 of the CC*
Day parole	6 months before PED
UTA	3 years before PED
ETA	any time, at the discretion of CSC
Statutory release	not applicable

* Eligibility is calculated to include time spent in custody following arrest

Indeterminate sentence

TYPE	ELIGIBILITY
Full parole	3 years for offenders sentenced prior to August 1, 1997* 7 years for offenders sentenced on or after August 1, 1997*
Day parole	3 years for offenders sentenced prior to August 1, 1997* 3 years before PED for offenders sentenced on or after August 1, 1997*
UTA	3 years for offenders sentenced prior to August 1, 1997* 3 years before PED for offenders sentenced on or after August 1, 1997*
ETA	any time, at the discretion of CSC
Statutory release	not applicable

* (from the day the offender was taken into custody)

Other sentence – two years or more

TYPE	ELIGIBILITY
Full parole (regular sentence)	the lesser of 1/3 of the sentence or seven (7) years: ss.120(1)
Full parole (Judge's determ.)	the lesser of 1/2 of the sentence and ten years: s. 743.6 of CC
Full parole (comb. sentence)	refer to sections 120.1, 120.2, and 120.3 of the CCRA
Day parole (non-APR)	the greater of six months before PED or 6 months of sentence: para.119(1)(c)
Day parole APR	the longer of six months served or 1/6th of the sentence: section 119.1
UTA	the greater of 1/2 the PED, or (6) months: para.115(1)(c)* a UTA for medical purposes to administer emergency medical treatment may be authorized at any time to an offender whose life or health is in danger: ss.115(2)* * offenders classified as maximum security are not eligible for unescorted temporary absence: ss.115(3)
ETA	any time, at the discretion of CSC
Statutory release	2/3 of the sentence, plus, for an offender serving a sentence at the time the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was proclaimed, the number of days of remission the offender may have lost or failed to earn, and was not re-credited

(for exceptions see s. 120, 120.1, 120.2, 120.3 and 121 of the CCRA)

Other sentence – less than two years

TYPE	ELIGIBILITY
Full parole	1/3 of the sentence: ss.120(1)
Day parole	1/2 of PED: para.119(1)(d)
UTA	Provincial jurisdiction
ETA	Provincial jurisdiction
Statutory rel.	not applicable

(for exceptions see s. 120, 120.1, 120.2, 120.3 and 121 of the CCRA).

3. Temporary absence

3.1 Unescorted Temporary Absence

Legislative references

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, sections 107(1)(e), and 115 to 118, and Regulations, sections 147, 148, 155, 156, 161(2), 162, and 164.

Decision-making criteria and factors

When reviewing a request for an unescorted temporary absence (UTA), the Board will conduct the assessment and analysis of all relevant aspects of the case described in the policy on Assessment for pre-release decisions âˆ' Decision-making criteria and process (2.1).

Personal development for rehabilitative purposes

An unescorted temporary absence for a specific personal development program authorized for periods of up to 60 consecutive days (ss. 116(6) of the CCRA), may include one or more outings per week and a specific number of hours per outing. These UTAs may include, but are not limited to, activities involving attendance/participation in:

• a substance abuse treatment program;
• Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous meetings;
• a sex offender treatment program;
• general or specialized education programs;
• technical training programs; or
• family violence counselling sessions.

The UTAs must be renewed by way of a review for each additional period of 60 days. In doing this review, Board members should consider the offender's progress over the previous 60-day period and whether or not the offender will present an undue risk to society during the absence.

When reviewing UTAs such as this for offenders for whom day parole eligibility has passed, Board members may consider the benefits of granting a day parole in stages that could serve the same purpose as the UTA. For example, a day parole program could begin under highly structured, controlled circumstances and the offender would progress as stages are successfully completed.

Assessment purposes

When the Board is considering a request for an unescorted temporary absence for assessment reasons, consideration of the purpose of the absence is needed.

• Absence for a relatively brief, specific purpose, such as for acceptance at a half-way house, may be considered for administrative purposes.
• Absence for investigating or participating in activities such as therapy, Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous groups or other support groups which provide positive and continuing support and influence of a rehabilitative nature for the offender, may be considered as personal development for rehabilitative purposes.

Group activities

For group activities, the Board will review and assess the case of each offender.

Supervision

When the Board authorizes an unescorted temporary absence, it does so with the understanding that the Correctional Service of Canada will ensure sufficient contact between the offender and the parole supervisor so that any increase in risk to the community will be monitored effectively.

Further conditional releases

The fact that a temporary absence has been authorized carries no commitment that additional absences will be authorized or that day parole or full parole will be granted.

Period in custody between UTAs

A minimum period of 24 hours in custody is required between all types of unescorted temporary absence except when the subsequent unescorted temporary absence is required for medical or compassionate reasons.

Delegation of UTA authority to Institutional Heads

The Board confers on all institutional heads the power to authorize the unescorted temporary absence for medical reasons, for all offenders serving

• a life sentence imposed as a minimum punishment or commuted from a sentence of death,
• a sentence for an indeterminate period, or
• a sentence for an offence set out in Schedule I or II.

The Board confers on all institutional heads the power to authorize the unescorted absence for

• all offenders serving a sentence for an offence on Schedule II, and
• offenders serving a sentence for an offence on Schedule I, except where the offence:
  • resulted in the death of, or serious harm to, the victim, or
  • is a sexual offence involving a child, as defined in subsection 129(9) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Cross reference

Policy on Assessment for Pre-Release Decisions - Decision-Making Criteria and Process (2.1).

Implementation date

2006-05-31

3.2 Escorted temporary absence – Offenders serving life sentences

Legislative references

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, section 17, the Criminal Code, section 746.1, and CCRA Regulations, sections 147 and 155.

National Parole Board interventions

The Correctional Service of Canada has the legislative authority, pursuant to section 17 of the Act, to authorize escorted temporary absences (ETA) for offenders serving a life sentence. The authorization may be subject to the Board's approval as described below.

Approval

Section 746.1 of the Criminal Code stipulates that, except with the approval of the NPB, no absence with escort (other than for medical reasons or to attend judicial proceedings or a coroner's inquest) may be authorized for an offender sentenced to life minimum, where the offender has more than 3 years to serve before PED.

Decision-making criteria

An escorted temporary absence may be approved by Board members when they believe that the criteria set out in Subsection 17(1) are met. As well, Board members should apply the risk assessment criteria for pre-release decisions described in 2.1 of this manual.

Group activities

For group activities, the Board will review and assess the case of each offender.

Escorts

Board members must be aware of the nature of the escort before approving an escorted temporary absence.

Cross reference

Policy on Risk assessment for pre-release decisions: Decision-making criteria and process (2.1).

Implementation date

2001-04-23

4. Parole

4.1 Day parole

Legislative references

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, ss.102, 119(1), s. 122, and Regulations section 157.

Preamble

Applications for day parole will be reviewed in accordance with the policy on Risk assessment for pre-release decisions, (2.1).

A day parole program may consist of a number of stages, each with a specific purpose. CSC may implement each phase upon successful completion of the preceding phase, unless the Board members at the time of the initial decision specify the requirement for a progress report from CSC for each phase and Board approval before the implementation of the next phase. In the decision, the Board shall be specific in recording how each stage is to be implemented. Any changes to the original day parole plan must be referred to the Board for approval before implementation.

Although performance on day parole is a factor to consider in a full parole review, successful completion of a day parole carries no commitment that full parole will be granted.

Duration of day parole

Day parole may be granted for a period not exceeding six months and may be continued for additional periods but each period may not exceed six months. (ss.122(5)) The Board must conduct an assessment of risk before each extension of the day parole. If the offender has reached full parole eligibility, the Board must determine whether the purpose of the day parole has been achieved and the offender would be more appropriately released on full parole, or whether the offender would benefit from an additional period of day parole to further prepare for full parole.

If a day parole plan is continued for an additional period, the total duration should not normally exceed one year, except for lifers. The additional day parole will be processed as a grant of a new day parole, although the same release conditions may be carried over.

Day parole eligibility more than one year before parole eligibility date

Experience and recidivism studies have demonstrated that prolonged periods of day parole are not usually of benefit to the offender. In considering day parole for offenders where the eligibility date is more than one year before full parole, or for long-term offenders, Board members shall take into consideration the effects of long-term incarceration and the benefits of well-structured release planning.

In some cases, a release plan proposing an extended period on day parole may be presented which provides for sufficient structure and control through participation in a comprehensive day parole program. Such a release plan may be offered in a community residential facility specializing in programs for long-term offenders.

If Board members decide during the risk assessment process that the day parole release plan being considered does not provide enough structure to manage the risk in conjunction with the above consideration, the Board members may consider alternate release plans presented by the Correctional Service which may include:

• a series of UTA's and/or extended UTA's;
• short periods of release on day parole requiring the offender to return to an institution each night; and
• full release on day parole requiring the offender to return to a community-based residential facility each night.

Day parole for foreign nationals

Factors to be considered

Up-to-date immigration status must be determined before granting day parole to an offender who is a foreign national but not subject to an order under section 105 of the Immigration Act. Information will include, but is not limited to:

• whether Immigration has been contacted to determine if they intend to issue a section 105 order;
• landed immigrant or visitor status of the offender;
• any proposed deportation action against the offender;
• the status of the most recent immigration inquiry, hearing, direction, immigration detention order or appeal of an order;
• whether the offender has appealed to Federal Court, and the status of the appeal;
• the effectiveness of any removal order in place;
• if there is an effective removal order, the status of the travel documentation;
• the result of any request for refugee status; and
• whether immigration officials have given permission for the offender to work or attend school.

When the release plan involves paid employment or schooling, authorization from immigration officials for the offender to work or attend school must be available before day parole may be granted.

In cases where an offender's immigration status (including the status of an appeal of an immigration decision) has not been finalized, Board members will take into consideration in their assessment the risk of the offender violating the conditions of release by absconding from the area in order to avoid deportation.

Decision documentation

In decisions to grant day parole, Board members will include in the comments, their assessment of the potential risk of the offender violating the conditions of day parole by absconding from the area in order to avoid deportation.

Conditions of release

The conditions the Board imposes on an offender on day parole are automatically carried over when the Board decides to continue a day parole unless the Board amends the conditions in continuing the day parole.

Additional conditions imposed on an offender on day parole are, however, not automatically carried over to full parole or statutory release. The Board will indicate in its decision whether some or all of the additional conditions on day parole are to be carried over to full parole or statutory release.

Leave privileges

Unless otherwise specified by the Board, in writing, the maximum leave privileges for an offender on day parole will be in accordance with Policy 7.2 – Residency and day parole leave privileges in this manual.

Expanded periods of leave

Before full parole eligibility, the Board may reduce the nightly reporting requirement so the offender is not required to report for extended periods in exceptional circumstances, when all other options have been considered and judged inappropriate, and only in order to meet the particular needs of the case. The Board may consider expanded leave to be responsive to the needs of female, aboriginal, ethnic minority or special needs offenders.

The Board has greater flexibility after full parole eligibility date. Board members must consider whether day parole represents the least restrictive option to protect society.

Documenting leave and expanded leave

If leave privileges or expanded periods of leave are authorized, the specific parameters of the leave being authorized and reasons shall be recorded as part of the decision.

Emergency medical and compassionate leave

Unless otherwise specified by Board members in the decision, the community correctional centre director or the responsible district director may authorize leave of up to a maximum of fifteen days per occurrence for emergency medical reasons, or up to a maximum of three days per occurrence for compassionate reasons such as death in the family or visits to the family where a serious illness occurs.

Such leave is to be dealt with via the day parole route rather than an unescorted temporary absence. In such cases, the National Parole Board must be informed within five working days whenever such leave is authorized.

Modifications to authorized leave

If the Board has authorized leave privileges, CSC must submit requests for modifications to the Board for approval if the modifications represent increased community access. The director of the CCC, the director of the CRF, or the district director may modify the leave privileges to reduce an offender's access to the community in accordance with the day parole plan and the offender's general progress.

Day parole to a private home

A private home may be designated by CSC as a community-based residential facility. The National Parole Board may grant a day parole to a private residence before PED only if the residence has been designated as a community-based residential facility.

The Board may consider day parole to a private home when an offender requires a period of transition from the institution, CCC, or CRF into the community; the offender needs continued support; and the demand for residential facilities is not high enough to ensure the provision of direct services by the private or public sector (e.g., geriatric, services for female offenders).

Cross reference

Policies on Risk assessment for pre-release decisions: Decision-making criteria and process (2.1), Hearings, Reviews, and Release conditions, and the Guidelines for leave privileges and Standards on Private Home Placement for Released Offenders.

Implementation date

January 24, 1996

4.2 Full Parole

Legislative references

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, sections 102, 120 (eligibilities), 121 (parole by exception),122-124 (reviews), 128 (effects), 133 (conditions of release)

Criteria for release on full parole

Offenders being considered for release on full parole will be assessed using the Assessment for pre-release decisions: Decision-making criteria and process policy (2.1).

When considering release on full parole, Board members must take into account the need for the offender to have a demonstrated change in behaviour and attitudes. Program completion alone should not be relied upon as evidence of change. Rather Board members should focus on observable and measurable results derived from interventions.

Recognizing the potential for information to be overlooked or misinterpreted when accumulated over lengthy or numerous periods of incarceration, it is critical that Board members focus on all relevant aspects of the case, including the offender's patterns of behaviour.

Offenders, particularly those who have been convicted of a violent offence, who have

• been incarcerated for a significant period of time;
• served more than two distinct penitentiary terms;
• repeated or multiple convictions and charges; and/or
• previously failed on conditional release;

shall not normally be granted full parole without having had previous successful experience on unescorted temporary absence and/or day parole. This period of gradual and slowly expanded releases allows offenders to demonstrate a capacity to reintegrate into society as law abiding citizens.

Parole by exception

An offender must submit a formal application for parole by exception unless:

• the offender is mentally or physically incapable of applying;
• release is being proposed without the offender's consent (such as for extradition); or
• where urgent circumstances require flexibility.

Board members must first decide whether one of the criteria in section 121 of the CCRA is met; if not, a review in advance of eligibility date will be denied and the process discontinued.

If a criterion for parole by exception is met, the Board will then consider whether to grant either day or full parole, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Board's decision policies. The Board should consider if the offender has reached eligibility for an alternative release program, which may be used instead of parole by exception.

Any re-applications received will not be submitted to the Board unless significant new information affecting the offender's eligibility for parole by exception is identified.

Cross reference

NPB Policy Manual:

2.1 Assessment for Pre-Release Decisions – Decision-Making Criteria and Process

7.1 Release Conditions

4.4 Deportation/Extradition/Voluntary Departure

8.1 Post Release Interventions.

Implementation date

2006-05-31

4.3 Accelerated review

Legislative references

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, sections 125, 126, 126.1 and Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, sections 149(1) and (2), 159 and 165(a).

Proper referral

Before scheduling an offender for review under the accelerated review provisions of the Act, the Board must ensure that the referral by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) was made in accordance with section 125 of the Act. If the criteria in section 125 are not met, the case will be reviewed under the parole criteria in section 102.

Decision-making criteria and process

Accelerated review for parole requires two distinct evaluations against different criteria:

• Assessment of whether the Board is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the offender, if released, is likely to commit an offence involving violence before the offender’s sentence expires; and
• If release on parole is directed, assessment of the need for the Board to impose special conditions of release which address the risk of re-offending non-violently.

ASSESSING WHETHER THE OFFENDER IS LIKELY TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE INVOLVING VIOLENCE

The Board will form its opinion about the likelihood of violent re-offending based on all available and relevant information provided by CSC, the offender, and others, such as victims or family members. The Board will consider, but is not limited to, the following factors:

• the offender’s potential for violent behaviour as established on the basis of
  • previous violent behaviour as documented in the offence history, provincial and young offender records, police reports of the circumstances surrounding the offence(s);
  • the seriousness of previous offences;
  • reliable information that the offender has difficulty controlling anger or impulsive behaviour, to the point that it might lead to the commission of an offence involving violence. This information may be obtained from community assessments which have examined a full range of variables including the offender’s family and marital history, substance abuse, social history, medical and psychiatric history, employment history and institutional behaviour;
  • threats of violence;
  • use of weapons during the commission of an offence;
  • attitude of indifference regarding the criminal behaviour and its impact on the victim(s);
• when an offender has been identified as a member or associate of an organized crime group or a criminal gang, the above factors, the circumstances surrounding the offence, and previous charges and convictions will be assessed in the context of these relationships;
• stressors/factors in the community which may be predictive of violent behaviour and the offender’s needs in relation to these factors;
• information relating to the performance and behaviour of the offender while under sentence;
• mental health status of the offender that has the potential to lead the offender to commit, prior to the expiration of the sentence, an offence involving violence;
• information about any of the offender’s attempts to reduce/mitigate the possibility of future violent behaviour and reliable information that the offender recognizes the problem and is participating or has participated in treatment or interventions such as anger management programs.

Assessing the risk of non-violent re-offending and the imposition of release conditions

When release on parole is directed, the Board shall assess the risk of non-violent re-offending and consider imposing conditions. This review will use the assessment criteria outlined in Policy 2.1 – Assessment for Pre-Release Decisions – Decision-Making Criteria and Process.

A condition to reside in a community-based residential facility may be imposed but only when the offender represents a high risk of non-violent re-offending and this condition has been determined to be the least restrictive measure available to manage the offender adequately and to facilitate their reintegration. This decision will be based on information from correctional staff that, in view of an assessment of the offender’s needs, accommodation is identified as a need area and a residency condition is considered to be a requirement to address the need.

In some cases Board members may have particular concerns that an offender eligible for release under the accelerated review provisions may not co-operate with the proposed conditions. Board members will document these concerns in the decision and reasons to alert CSC to the potential of the offender being non-compliant and/or re-offending.

Accelerated review hearing

When parole is not directed at the in-office review the case will be scheduled for a hearing. Two Board members conduct the hearing and consider:

• the information that was considered at the in-office review;
• the reasons provided by the previous Board member for the refusal to direct that the offender be released on parole;
• any new information submitted to the Board subsequent to the in-office review; and
• representations from the offender regarding the factors which led to the refusal to direct release at the in-office review.

Cross reference

NPB Policy Manual:
2.1 – Assessment for Pre-Release Decisions – Decision-Making Criteria and Process

Effective date

2008-05-09

4.4 Deportation/Extradition/ Voluntary departure

Reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, sections 102, 121-123 and 133.

Purpose

To guide the Board in reviewing cases involving deportation, voluntary departure or extradition.

General

When reviewing cases for deportation, extradition, and voluntary departure Board members must take into consideration the criteria of undue risk to society (not only Canadian society) and the facilitating of the offender's reintegration into the community. They must also consider the benefits of community supervision in the achievement of these criteria.

When the risk is assessed as undue, it is noted that there are other ways for an offender to effect a removal to another country. One such method is for the offender to request a transfer to that country under the Transfer of Offenders Act, in the event there is an agreement with that country.

Deportation

The up-to-date immigration status of the offender must be determined before granting parole to an offender who is subject to or may be subject to deportation. Information will include, but is not limited to:

• permanent resident or visitor status of the offender;
• whether Immigration has issued or intends to issue a detaining order under section 105 of the Immigration Act;
• the status of the most recent immigration inquiry, hearing, direction, immigration detention order or appeal of an order;
• in the case of day parole, whether the offender has appealed to Federal Court and the status of the appeal;
• the effectiveness of any removal order in place;
• if there is an effective removal order, the status of the travel documentation;
• the result of any request for refugee status;
• whether immigration officials have given permission for the offender to work or attend school; and
• whether the offender has requested a transfer under the Transfer of Offenders Act.

If an offender's immigration status (including the status of an appeal of an immigration decision) has not been finalized, Board members will take into consideration in their assessment of risk, the risk of the offender violating the conditions of release by absconding from the area in order to avoid deportation.

Extradition

When reviewing a request for full parole from an offender who is subject to a surrender order under subsection 25(1) of the Extradition Act, Board members should be aware that, pursuant to subsection 25(4) of that Act, a procedure exists, other than full parole, that may be exercised by the Minister of Justice to allow for the immediate surrender of the offender to the foreign state.

Voluntary departure

When reviewing requests for voluntary departure from an offender serving a long-term sentence, Board members must exercise the utmost caution and be aware that authorizing the voluntary departure of the offender to another country effectively nullifies the balance of the offender's sentence as long as the offender resides outside of Canada.

Before authorizing voluntary departure for an offender on parole or statutory release, Board members must be satisfied that the country of destination is willing to accept the offender. Confirmation of acceptance should be in the form of an original, official document.

As well, Board members must consider that it is preferable that some form of supervision or monitoring of the offender take place in the destination country. Board members should therefore be advised of the efforts taken to arrange for this. If supervision or monitoring is available, written confirmation of how it will be undertaken must be provided to the Board. The supervision or monitoring could be in the form of contact with local police in the destination where the offender plans to reside.

Offender consent to parole

Consent of the offender is not required for the Board to grant full parole to an offender who is subject to deportation or extradition.

Effective date of parole

When granting a full parole to an offender who is subject to deportation or extradition, Board members will, as part of the decision, specify that the parole does not become effective until the offender can be released into the care and control of the appropriate government agencies involved in carrying out the removal order or the extradition.

Release conditions

The Board should impose, as part of any decision which results in the deportation, voluntary departure or extradition of an offender, a condition requiring that the offender must inform the Board and the Correctional Service of Canada in advance if the offender plans to return to Canada before the expiration of the sentence.

Cross reference

CSC Case Management Bulletin, Issue 28 – Foreign National Offenders

Section 25 of the Extradition Act

Subsection 50(2) of the Immigration Act

The Transfer of Offenders Act and the Schedule to it.

Effective date

97/01/02

5. Statutory Release

5 Statutory Release

Legislative references

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act, sections 127, 128, 131(3), 133(3) & (4.1) and CCRA Regulations 161, and 162.

Special conditions with respect to statutory release

The National Parole Board may impose any condition in addition to the conditions prescribed in the Regulations on the statutory release of an offender that it considers reasonable and necessary in order to protect society and to facilitate the successful reintegration into society of the offender. (Ss.133(3)).

Imposing a residency condition on statutory release

The authority to impose a residency condition on offenders who have reached their statutory release date is intended to enhance the control and management of risk of certain offenders where the Board is satisfied that, in the absence of such a condition, the offender will present an undue risk to society by committing an offence listed in Schedule I before sentence expiry.

Imposing a residency condition on statutory release is regarded as an exceptional provision that will only be used by the Board when a period of controlled re-entry into the community is deemed by the Board to be essential to support the offender and protect the public. The condition may also be imposed during the statutory release period if the behaviour of the offender while on statutory release leads to a determination that without this condition the offender presents an undue risk to commit a Schedule I offence before the expiration of the sentence.

The Board, when rendering a decision to impose a residency condition, will take into consideration any representations made by or on behalf of the offender.

Referral

This condition will normally be imposed following referral from the Correctional Service of Canada. In an exceptional case, the Board may consider imposition without a CSC referral. In this circumstance, CSC will be asked to identify an appropriate facility and to provide comments on the proposed use of this condition. Should space in an appropriate facility not be available when this condition has been imposed, the offender would be released at statutory release date.

Board review – pre-release

Pre-release reviews to impose a residency condition on statutory release will be conducted by way of an in office review.

Board review – post-release

Post-release reviews to impose a residency condition on statutory release will be conducted by way of an in office review.

In urgent situations where the risk of the offender has changed it may be necessary for the Board to immediately impose a residency condition.

Quorum

A review to impose, remove or vary a residency condition on statutory release will be made by two members of the Board.

Post-release hearings and new statutory release date within 9 months

In post-release hearings where the Board decides to revoke a release or confirm a revocation, which results in a new projected statutory release date within 9 months of the hearing, the Board will address the issue of conditions, including residency on the new statutory release.

Factors for assessing the risk of committing a violent offence

To determine whether an offender represents an undue risk of committing an offence on Schedule I, the Board will consider all relevant information, including the following:

• the offender's potential for violent behaviour as established on the basis of:
  • previous violent behaviour as documented in the offence history, provincial and young offender records, police reports of the circumstances surrounding the offence(s);
  • the seriousness of previous offences;
  • reliable information that the offender has difficulty controlling anger or impulsive behaviour, to the point that it might lead to the commission of an offence involving violence. This information may be obtained from community assessments which have examined a full range of variables including the offender's family and marital history, social history, medical and psychiatric history such as evidence of substance abuse, employment history and institutional performance including any special incidents;
  • evidence of threats of violence;
  • use of weapons during the commission of an offence; and
  • attitude of indifference to the criminal behaviour and its impact on the victim(s);
• stressors/factors in the release environment which may be predictive of violent behaviour and the offender's needs in relation to these factors;
• psychiatric or psychological evidence that a mental illness or disorder of the offender has the potential to lead the offender to commit, prior to the expiration of the sentence, an offence involving violence; and
• information about any attempts by the offender to reduce/mitigate the possibility of future violent behaviour and evidence that the offender recognizes the problem and is participating or intends to participate in treatment or interventions such as participation in anger management programs.

Decision to impose a residency condition

After determining that an offender represents an undue risk to commit an offence on Schedule I, the Board, in deciding whether to impose a residency condition will take into consideration any factor that is relevant, including:

• an assessment from correctional staff that the offender is considered as a high/risk- high/need or high/risk-medium/need offender;
• accommodation is identified as a need area and a residency condition is viewed by correctional staff as a requirement to address the need;
• documentation indicating that the offender would likely benefit from a period of additional control as is provided by a residential facility;
• the availability of bed-space in a suitable residential facility is confirmed.

Duration of a condition to reside

A residency condition on statutory release must remain in effect for ONLY as long as it is reasonable and necessary for public safety and to facilitate the successful reintegration of the offender.

Board members must keep in mind that it is difficult to know at the time of imposing the residency condition how long the condition will be necessary, but that there can also be negative implications for reintegration and public safety if the offender believes that the condition will necessarily remain in effect until warrant expiry.

It is not practical to establish in policy a time frame that will apply in every case – each case must be assessed and evaluated individually.

If a definite period for the residency condition is not stipulated in the decision, the condition will remain in place until warrant expiry. It is expected, however, that CSC will request removal of the condition when the parole supervisor is satisfied that, in the absence of the condition, the offender no longer presents an undue risk to commit an offence listed in Schedule I.

Residential conditions following a period of detention or a detention referral

Please see Detention policy, Chapter 6.

Residency in psychiatric facilities

Residency in a psychiatric facility will normally be used only when treatment is required at the facility and should be part of a multi-phase plan leading to residency in a community-based residential facility or regular statutory release

Since residency in a psychiatric facility may offer limited access to the community Board members will document, in the decision, their rationale for placing the offender in such a facility. Limited access to the community is appropriate in order to enable the offender to participate in and benefit from treatment programs that will further reduce and facilitate the management of risk in the community.

Private home

A private home may be designated by CSC as a community based residential facility. The Board may impose a residency condition to a private home only if it has been so designated.

The Board may consider residence in a private home when an offender requires a period of transition from the institution, CCC, or CRF into the community; the offender needs continued support; and the demand for residential facilities is not high enough to ensure the provision of direct services by the private or public sector (e.g., geriatric cases, small or remote communities, services for female offenders).

Leave privileges

Leave privileges should normally be in accordance with the Board's policy on residency and day parole leave privileges. Board members should only further limit access to the community by exception and the rationale is to be stated in the reasons for the decision.

Expanded periods of leave

The Board may reduce the nightly reporting requirement so the offender is not required to report for extended periods in exceptional circumstances when all other options have been considered and judged inappropriate and only in order to meet the particular needs of the case. The Board may consider expanded leave in order to respond to the needs of female, aboriginal, ethnic minority or special needs offenders.

Emergency medical and compassionate leave

Unless otherwise specified by Board members in the decision, leave of up to a maximum of fifteen days per occurrence for emergency medical reasons, or up to a maximum of three days per occurrence for compassionate reasons such as death in the family or visits to the family where a serious illness occurs, is authorized by the Board for implementation by the facility director in conjunction with the responsible district director.

Decision documentation

The written reasons for imposing or removing a residency condition shall be clearly stated on the decision sheet.

The reasons shall outline what the Board expects of the offender and must reflect the rationale for imposing the condition and why it is considered essential for the management of risk.

As such, the written reasons shall include the Board members' rationale for determining that, in the absence of a residency condition, the offender will present an undue risk to commit a Schedule I offence and how the residency condition will facilitate the successful reintegration into society of the offender.

Documenting leave and expanded leave

If leave privileges or expanded periods of leave are authorized, the specific parameters of the leave being authorized and reasons shall be recorded as part of the decision.

Cross Reference

Policies on Release Conditions, Conditional Release Decision-making, Detention, Residency and day parole leave privileges, Disclosure to Offender, Appeals, and Post-release Interventions.

CSC Case Management Bulletin (99/7/14) – NPB Hearings to impose Statutory Release with a residency condition.

Implementation Date

2009-09-10

6. Detention

6 Detention

Legislative References

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Sections 129-132, Schedules I and II, Regulations 160.

Referrals

Proper referral

Prior to scheduling an offender for a detention review, the Board must determine that the referral by the Correctional Service of Canada or by a provincial or territorial correctional agency was made in accordance with section 129 of the Act, i.e.

• the referring agency is of the opinion that the criteria for referral are met, and
• their conclusion is reasonable.

Cases referred by the Service and the Commissioner of Corrections are both valid referrals if properly referred. The computation for scheduling the review is calculated from the date of the first referral. A case is considered to have been referred on the day it is forwarded from the referring agent.

Withdrawal of referral

A case referred to the Board may not be withdrawn unless new information indicates that the referral criteria at the time the case was referred were not met, or the statutory release date has changed.

A request to the Board to withdraw a referral will be accepted only if the request is made, in writing, by the person(s) who made the referral or by a person designated by the Commissioner and it is accompanied by a report which outlines the reasons for the withdrawal.

Hearings

Interim hearing

In certain cases referred by the Commissioner to the Chairperson of the Board it is not possible to hold a detention hearing before the offender's statutory release date. The Board must then hold an interim hearing to determine whether sufficient information exists to hold a detention hearing and to ensure the Board does not lose jurisdiction of the case. The purpose must be explained to the offender.

On completion of the interim hearing, a detention hearing may be held immediately if the Board is satisfied that all relevant information is available for making a decision, the information has been shared with offender, all other procedural safeguards are met, and the offender agrees to proceed. Detention hearings not held immediately following the interim hearing must be held as soon as is practicable but not later than four weeks after the case was referred to the Board, unless the hearing is postponed at the request of the offender.

Detention hearing

The detention hearing is distinct from the interim hearing, therefore, the members who sat on the interim hearing need not sit on the detention hearing, although they may do so.

Procedural safeguards

Prior to commencement of the hearing procedural safeguards will be confirmed and offenders will be informed of the purpose of the hearing, the criteria to be examined and the possible decisions that can be made.

Postponements

The Board will postpone the detention hearing at the offender's request if a procedural safeguard can not be met. A new hearing will be scheduled to take place within two months. However, if the offender's statutory release date is within one month of an interim hearing, the Board shall deny the postponement in order to avoid losing jurisdiction and order detention pending a new hearing.

If information considered essential to the case is not available to the Board at the time of the hearing, the Board may postpone the review in order to obtain the information. However, the review must be completed within the time frames established in the Regulations, unless the offender agrees to a longer postponement. If the lack of this information results in a detention decision, a review of the decision will be undertaken when the information becomes available.

Factors to be considered

In determining the likelihood of an offender committing an offence causing the death of, or serious harm (severe physical injury or severe psychological damage) t,o another person; a sexual offence involving a child; or a serious drug offence, the Board must take into consideration any factor that is relevant, including the factors outlined in section 132 of the Act.

Evidence of recurring sexual victimization involving children under eighteen as demonstrated by the offender's criminal history, in psychological reports or from information obtained from victims will be considered as reliable information about the offender's sexual preferences for the purposes of paragraph 132(1.1)(b) of the Act.

Determining serious harm

When determining whether an offender caused serious harm to a person, Board members will consider the following:

• An offence that results in physical or psychological disability, incapacitation, disfigurement, or serious reduction in quality of life, and the result is permanent or long-term in nature, should be regarded, unless exceptional circumstances exist, as having satisfied the "serious harm" criterion.
• It is not necessary that an offence have a permanent or long-term effect on the victim in order to satisfy the "serious harm" criterion. For example, if a victim is severely beaten, but recovers completely from the beating, it is still possible for that offence to be considered to have caused "serious harm".
• When the Act requires that an "opinion" be formed as to whether the offence caused serious harm, the Board member's are required to exercise judgment about the severity of the harm caused. It is the Board member's judgment which is required; although the member may draw on assessments made by others such as psychologists, the member must not substitute the other's judgment for the member's.
• It is essential to bear in mind that in cases where there is no evidence of physical harm, it is still necessary to form an opinion as to whether severe psychological damage was caused. It is recognized that in many cases it will be difficult to get concrete information as to the psychological impact of the crime on the victim.
• If necessary, in order to form an opinion as to whether or not severe psychological damage was caused, Board members may draw on expert opinion; this can be achieved through consultations or discussions with a psychologist or psychiatrist, or through reference to the available literature. (N.B. For guidelines on assessment of the psychological damage aspect of serious harm, see Appendix I.)

Additionally, the following factors must be considered in formulating an opinion as to whether serious harm was caused. It is not necessary for an offence to involve each of these elements in order to meet the criterion; rather, all the dimensions must be weighted and an assessment made whether, taken together, all the elements of the offence lead to an opinion that serious harm was caused:

• the extent of injury to the victim, as assessed or indicated by medical care sought or required;
• the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it, and in particular whether it involved brutality, excessive force, viciousness, or deviant sexual behaviour;
• the use of a weapon to harm or threaten the victim;
• whether or not the victim was subject to prolonged or repeated abuse or terror;
• any particular vulnerability of the victim, such as being young, aged, infirm, helpless, or handicapped.

Decision options

Taking into account the factors above and any other relevant factors, Board members will make one of the following determinations:

1. Detention

Board members will order the detention of an offender where they are satisfied:

• in the case of an offender serving an offence set out in Schedule I, that the offender is likely to commit,
  • an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person, or,
  • a sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of the sentence;
• in the case of an offender serving a sentence that includes an offence set out in Schedule II, that the offender is likely, if released, to commit a serious drug offence before the expiration of the sentence; or
• in the case of an offender whose case was referred to the Chairperson by the Commissioner, that the offender is likely, if released, to commit before the expiration of the sentence,
• an offence causing the death of or serious harm (severe physical injury or severe psychological damage) to another person;
• a sexual offence involving a child; or
• a serious drug offence

2. Statutory release

If the Board members determine that the offender does not meet the criteria for detention, the offender will be released on statutory release, with or without additional conditions as deemed necessary and appropriate to facilitate re-integration and to assist in the management of the offender.

3. One-chance statutory release

If the Board members determine that the offender does not meet the criteria for detention, but are satisfied that the offender was serving a sentence for a Schedule I offence which caused death or serious harm or was a sexual offence involving a child; or was serving a sentence for a Schedule II offence the Board members will decide whether to impose a one-chance provision on the offender's statutory release pursuant to s. 130(4) of the Act.

When determining whether to order one-chance statutory release, Board members will take into consideration any factor that is relevant, including:

• evidence of a history of repeated failure on conditional release;
• evidence of repeated convictions for similar offences;
• the offender's progress in treatment programs;
• the extent to which the offender's release plan minimizes the possibility of future violence, sexual offences against children or a future serious drug offence.

Reviews of detention orders

The Board may review a detention order at any time and must review an order within one year after the order was made; and thereafter, within one year after the date of each preceding review pursuant to section 131 of the Act. The Board may order detention with an understanding that there will be a further review upon successful or near completion of the treatment program. At the review the Board must determine whether there is sufficient new information concerning the offender to justify modifying the order or making a new order. The behaviour of the offender must have improved sufficiently to satisfy the Board members that the offender no longer meets the detention criterion.

Residency condition following a period of detention

To decide whether to impose a residency condition for an offender who will be released following a period of detention, the Board will take into consideration any factor that is relevant, including:

• the offender is identified as requiring a gradual reintegration into the community following the period of detention;
• information from correctional staff that accommodation is identified as a need area and a residency condition is viewed as a requirement to address the need;
• the condition is reasonable and necessary for the protection of society and to facilitate the offender's successful reintegration into the community; and
• bed space in a suitable residential facility is confirmed.

Community access

Initially, offenders will be required to return to the residential facility nightly, unless otherwise authorized by the Board in writing. As part of this decision, Board members will state explicitly the expectations that are included in the condition including any limits or changes to access to the community.

Emergency medical and compassionate leave

Unless otherwise specified by Board members in the decision, leave of up to a maximum of fifteen days per occurrence for emergency medical reason, or up to a maximum of three days per occurrence for compassionate reasons such as death in the family or visits to the family where a serious illness occurs, is authorized by the Board for implementation by the facility director or the responsible district director.

Appropriateness of treatment centres and institutions as residential facilities

For purposes of orders made under subpara. 131(3)(a)(ii) certain penitentiaries are designated by the Commissioner as community-based residential facilities.

Psychiatric facilities and penitentiaries may offer very limited access to the community. If access to the community would be less in such institutions than if the inmate were in another type of community-based residential facility, a rationale for placing the offender there must be provided in the submission to the National Parole Board. For example, limited access to the community is appropriate in order to enable the offender to participate in and benefit from treatment programs that will further facilitate the management of the offender in the community.

Compliance with rules and regulations

When a statutory release with residency case is assigned to a psychiatric facility or penitentiary, an additional condition to respect the rules and regulations of that facility must be imposed. Offenders on statutory release with residency are not inmates and cannot be charged with institutional offences while housed within a Correctional Service of Canada institution.

Reviews of residency orders

The Board may review a residency order at any time and must review such an order within one year and thereafter within one year after the date of each preceding review.

Review following an additional sentence

When the Board conducts a review pursuant to ss.130(3.2) of the Act to determine whether the current detention order should be amended to keep it in force until the new warrant expiry date, a full review of the case is not required given that the detention order is still in effect and a full review of the detention order will occur within one year of the previous detention decision or annual review decision.

Board members will address the information related to the additional sentence in deciding whether to amend the order.

Cross references

NPB Policy Manual:

9.1 – Reviews

9.2 – Hearings

Implementation date

2007-05-22

Appendix I – Guidelines for the assessment of the psychological damage aspect of serious harm

These guidelines are based on research evidence examining the psychological effects of crime on victims and clinical diagnostic criteria. They are intended to assist CSC staff and NPB members in recognizing the psychological aspects of serious harm.

While these sources of information are relevant to the assessment of serious harm, they must not be used as a substitute for individual judgments. Board member's are required to exercise their own judgment and form their own opinion about whether an offence caused serious harm to the victim.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act defines "serious harm" as "severe physical injury or severe psychological damage". The Act also requires that an opinion be formed about whether certain offences caused "serious harm" to the victim.

In consideration of the practical limitations involved in assessing the often "unseen" nature of severe psychological damage, the guidelines set out a series of steps, relevant to the level of information available on an offender's file, to assist CSC staff and Board members in formulating an opinion of serious harm.

Clinical Definition of Serious Harm

In assessing the psychological impact of an offence, mental health professionals generally consider whether victims have symptoms of a serious psychological disorder after the criminal offence.

Psychological disorders are based on impairments in psychological functioning as indicated by:

• the victims' subjective distress and self-reported symptoms; and
• the victims' inability to maintain a valued role in society, e.g., problems with work, school (if a child), family, and friends.

The overall level of psychological impairment is based on weighing the subjective and societal perspectives. In general, serious problems in one area are sufficient to indicate a serious mental disorder. The most common, serious psychological disorder to result from criminal victimization is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Diagnostic Criteria for PTSD

• reliving of event (intrusive memories, dreams, feeling like event is recurring)
• feeling numb; persistent avoidance of possible reminders of event; loss of interest in the future
• increased physiological arousal (sleep problems, cannot concentrate, startles easily)
• duration of the disturbance of at least one month

The difference between "mild" to "moderate" symptoms and "severe" symptoms is a matter of degree. One way of determining whether a psychological symptom is severe or not is to consider whether a person with that symptom would definitely be in need of treatment. As a reference point, the following symptoms are considered severe versus moderate by most mental health clinicians and researchers:

Distinctions Between Severe and Moderate Psychological Symptoms

Severe

• has suicidal ideation
• unable to keep a job
• unable to leave home
• has no friends
• frequently shoplifts
• neglects family
• has delusions (believes things that could not be true)
• has frequent panic attacks
• refuses to go to school (child)
• has persistent insomnia
• compulsively drinks
• addicted to drugs

Moderate

• has depressed mood
• has conflicts with co-workers
• avoids some places usually considered safe (e.g. shopping malls)
• has few friends
• steals from others within the household
• provides inconsistent parenting
• is overly suspicious
• has occasional panic attacks
• occasionally truant
• has some nightmares

Other serious psychological disorders that can result from criminal victimization include depression, conduct disorder (in children), various anxiety disorders, and the exacerbation of pre-existing psychological or psychiatric problems. A frequent symptom in children of sexual victimization is inappropriate sexual behaviour.

Documentary Sources for Assessing Severe Psychological Damage

Severe psychological damage can be inferred from various sources. One strong source of evidence would be the assessment from a duly qualified mental health professional documenting that such harm had occurred. Since such assessments are rarely, if ever, available, another direct source would be victim impact statements. If these statements do not exist or provide unclear or insufficient information, severe psychological damage may in some cases be inferred from offence and victim characteristics as described in such documents as police reports and court documents outlining the facts of the offence.

Steps to Assess Severe Psychological Damage

The following steps can also be taken to assess severe psychological damage and may be particularly useful where psychological assessments for victims are not available:

• Examine victim impact statements. For impact statements taken immediately after the crime, look for high levels of subjective distress and the victims' fear of death during the incident. Strong fears reported immediately following the incident are an indication that the victim may have suffered severe psychological damage;
• For victim impact statements taken several months after the event, look for any serious symptoms, including symptoms of PTSD, sustained subjective distress, and impairment in social and occupational functioning. These are signs that the victim may have suffered severe psychological damage;
• In addition to victim impact statements, consideration should be given to offence and victim characteristics.

The following lists identify offence and victim characteristics identified in the mental health literature as being commonly associated with psychological disorders resulting from sexual and non-sexual victimization. The presence of each of these characteristics increases the probability that a victim of a criminal offence suffered severe psychological damage. It should be noted that the research literature indicates that sexual offences are more likely to cause severe psychological damage than non-sexual offences.

Factors Associated with Severe Psychological Damage

Offence characteristics

• sexual offence
• if a sexual offence, penetration was involved
• brutality (e.g., serious physical injury, torture)
• victim held captive
• repeated offences against victim
• long duration

Victim characteristics

• prior mental health or adjustment problems
• prior criminal victimization
• female
• 50 years old or older

Other factors

• prior positive relationship or relationship of trust with offender (e.g., parent abuses child, assault by marriage partner).
• no social support for victim provided (e.g., family disbelieves child sexual abuse victim, victim isolated from friends, family, services).

Assessing Whether the Victim Suffered Severe Psychological Damage Based on Offence and Victim Characteristics

The foregoing are guidelines only. Victims may be seriously harmed although few (or none) of the factors are present. As well, victims may not be seriously harmed even though many of the factors are present. The severity and duration of the factors need to be considered in making judgments about the impact of the crime. To assist in making this judgment, the following table presents various combinations of cases that have been identified in the research literature as being associated with severe psychological damage. The cases are presented in descending order of their likelihood of being associated with severe psychological damage (i.e., the ones at the top of the table are representative of cases most often associated with the incidence of severe psychological damage and the ones at the bottom depict cases that are unlikely to be associated with severe psychological damage).

Likelihood of cases being associated with severe psychological damage

Most likely

• child victim, sexual intercourse with parental figure.
• adult female victim, forced sexual intercourse with significant physical injury.
• adult victim, hostage for 10 hours, physical injury, plausible death treats.
• child victim, sexual offence without penetration by parental figure or person in position of trust, duration greater than 12 months.

Not as likely

• child victim, sexual offence without penetration by parental figure or person in position of trust, duration of 6 months or less.
• adult female victim, sexual assault without penetration by male known to victim, threats of injury, single incident.
• adult female victim, physical assaults by intimate male, greater than 12 months duration.
• child victim, sexual assault by stranger, no overt force, 3 months duration.
• adult female victim, prior mental health problems, armed robbery.

Less likely

• child victim, single incident of sexual assault by stranger, no overt force, low degree of sexual contact.
• adult female victim, single incident of physical assault (bruising) by male acquaintance.
• adult female victim, sexual assault (touching over clothes) by male in position of authority (landlord, boss), no overt force, duration of 3 months.
• elderly woman living alone, arson in apartment building, not direct target.

Least Likely

• exhibitionism, obscene telephone calls (adult or child victims).
• property offence, family household, no special vulnerabilities.
• adult male victim, assault by male acquaintance.

7. Release Conditions

7.1 Release Conditions

Legislative reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, sections 133 and 134, and Regulations, section 161.

Purpose

This policy provides guidance to Board members for imposing and altering release conditions.

Special conditions

General

A special condition should be imposed only when the condition is considered appropriate for risk management and only when the condition is reasonable and necessary to prevent the offender from returning to criminal activity.

Board members must be satisfied that without the assistance and control afforded by compliance with the special condition, the offender presents an undue risk to reoffend. There must be a clear link between the condition and the probability of reoffending if the condition is violated.

A special condition must relate directly to a need identified in the decision documentation or to behaviour that the Board members consider inappropriate or unacceptable. The condition must be one that can be complied with and that can be monitored and enforced by the parole supervisor.

Board members must be cognizant of and sensitive to the needs and circumstances of aboriginal and female offenders and offenders from other cultures when contemplating imposing conditions for these offenders.

Each condition must be stated clearly and explicitly using wording that specifies the intent of the Board members so that there can be no misinterpretation or misunderstanding. Wording such as "at the discretion of the parole supervisor" is inappropriate as it delegates to the parole supervisor the authority to impose the condition.

The offender has the right to make representations to the Board whenever a condition is varied or imposed by the Board. A report will be requested to obtain the views of the parole supervisor before reviewing any offender request to amend a condition of release.

Immediate risk to the community

In situations where there is immediate risk to the community, the Board may impose a special condition without delay. The offender will be notified in writing of the right to, within 30 days of being notified of the imposition of the condition, request a review to consider any written representations made by or on behalf of the offender. This review should occur, as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days following receipt of the representations.

Factors to consider when imposing or varying a special condition

If the Board imposes or varies a special condition when the offender is in the community, it should be based on triggering behaviour that relates to an increase in the level of risk to the community since the offender's release.

In its review of a case, Board members will consider any relevant factor, including:

• the offender's progress while on release;
• the degree of stability in the offender's release plan or current situation;
• the presence of stresses which might affect future behaviour; and
• evidence that the offender has addressed the major factors for which the condition has been imposed.

Post release

The Board should remove or vary a special condition when the condition or part of the condition is no longer reasonable and necessary in order to protect society and to facilitate the offender's reintegration into society.

Violation of a special condition

Violation of a special condition is considered to be indicative that the risk is becoming unacceptable and should result in immediate intervention by the supervising authority.

Altering conditions prescribed by the regulations

Although the Board may vary the application of how any condition prescribed by the regulations applies to an offender, under no circumstances will the Board relieve an offender from compliance with any of the following conditions:

• obey the law and keep the peace;
• report to the parole supervisor as instructed by the parole supervisor; and
• immediately report to the parole supervisor any change in the address of residence.

The Board expects the parole supervisor to maintain sufficient contact with the offender so that an increase in the level of risk to the community may be monitored effectively.

Out-of-country travel

General

Offenders on conditional release are required, as a condition of release, to remain at all times in Canada. Nevertheless, an offender may request that the Board authorize a temporary exemption to this condition, in order to allow the offender to travel outside of Canada.

Normally, if an offender is out of the country, the offender cannot benefit from the usual monitoring and support offered through the parole supervision process. As a result, prior to approving any request for out-of-Canada travel, an assessment must be completed in order to determine any issues related to public safety associated with the travel.

Criteria for review of out-of-country travel

When reviewing requests for out-of-country travel, Board members will take into consideration any factor that is relevant in determining whether the travel might result in any increase in the offender's risk to society, including, but not limited to:

• written confirmation from authorities that the country of destination does not object to the offender visiting that country; if not available, proof that the offender tried to get the confirmation;
• information from CSC concerning the purpose and details of the travel, including the length of time the offender will be outside of Canada and the availability of collateral contacts in the destination country;
• the consistency of the travel with the correctional plan of the offender and any recommendation of the parole supervisor;
• the nature of the offender's criminal history and any police opinion. Any involvement in drug trafficking or organized crime and any potential for such activities or involvements;
• progress on current and previous releases including previous travel, length of time on the current release, and the proximity to the warrant expiry date;
• the success of the offender's reintegration over an extended period of time;
• In the case of travel for a vacation/holiday, Board members will consider the appropriateness of the travel.

Decision documentation

The reasons for imposing, removing or varying a special condition, or relieving or varying the application of a condition prescribed by the Regulations must be clearly stated in the decision. The Board must also outline what it expects of the offender.

The written reasons for imposing a special condition must reflect the rationale for imposing the condition and why it is considered reasonable and necessary to prevent an offender from returning to criminal activity.

Cross reference

NPB Policy Manual:

5.0 Statutory Release

7.2 Residency and day parole leave privileges

8.1 Post Release Interventions

Implementation date

2006-10-18

7.2 Residency and day parole leave privileges

The Board is responsible for establishing the parameter of leave privileges to be associated with an approved day parole, or parole or statutory release that is subject to a residency condition. It entrusts to those who are responsible for the day-to-day supervision and care of these offenders, the manner in which the leave privileges will be implemented.

Normally, the maximum leave privileges that will be authorized by the Board are as outlined below. Board members will specify in their decision any case specific leave privileges other than these.

The institutional head, the director of the residential facility or the CSC District Director, as the case may be and in conjunction with the parole supervisor, will determine how and when the Board authorized leave privileges are to be implemented. The determination will take into consideration the offender's progress in achieving the objectives of the release in relation to the correctional plan. Additional leave privileges may not be granted unless approved in writing by the Board.

Weekday

Setting of time limits for return to a residence on a weekday is subject to the discretion of the superintendent of the community correctional centre (CCC), the director of the community residential facility (CRF), or the responsible CSC District Director.

Weekend

(for offenders who work on weekends, "weekend" in this context means a 48 hour time period)

CSC institutions

The District Director, Parole, in consultation with the institutional head, may implement the leave privileges within the context of the release plan approved by the Board and in relation to the general progress of the offender. As a maximum, one weekend may be granted each month; however, the first cannot be implemented until at least thirty days after the implementation of the release.

CCCs and institutions under provincial or territorial jurisdiction

The superintendent, the District Director or responsible person in CSC Parole may implement the weekend leave privileges in accordance with the release plan approved by the Board and in relation to the offender's progress. Seventy-two hour weekend passes (Friday to Monday) may be granted within the following limits:

• one weekend during the first month in residence;
• two weekends per month during the second month in residence;
• three weekends per month during the third month in residence; and
• four weekends per month during the fourth and subsequent months in residence.

Holiday weekends may extend from the Friday to the following Tuesday with a total leave of up to ninety-six hours.

Community residential facilities

Leave privileges may be granted in accordance with the basic rules and regulations of the community residential facility, unless the Board members have indicated specifically what those leave privileges are to be as part of the release plan. The supervising parole officer or indirect supervisor of CSC, Parole must be informed of what the leave privileges are for each particular resident at the community residential facility.

Private homes

In the case of conditional release to a private home, the same or similar conditions are to be applied as for a placement in a community residential facility including curfew requirement and weekly contacts by the supervisor at the private home unless otherwise directed by the Board.

Leave for special celebrations

(Christmas, New Year's, spiritual or other cultural celebrations)

If the Board members have already granted weekend leave privileges, leave for special celebrations cannot be granted in addition to the weekends already approved for those months. The leave for the special celebration will replace the regular weekend leave privileges. In addition, the offender may be allowed the time necessary to travel to and from the community facility for such special occasions by the Correctional Service.

Cross-References

Policies on Day parole, Full parole, Statutory release and Detention.

Effective date

January 24, 1996

8. Post Release Interventions

8.1 Post Release Interventions

Legislative reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, subsection 124(3) and sections 135 to 138 and Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, section 163.

Purpose

This policy provides guidance to Board members for the review of offenders released on day parole, full parole or statutory release.

Introduction

The risk an offender presents to society is the fundamental consideration in any conditional release decision. Proper supervision of offenders in the community increases public safety and aids in the successful reintegration of the offender.

The Board expects the supervision of offenders in the community to be undertaken in accordance with the policies, directives and guidelines of the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada.

Any behaviour or circumstance that suggests an increase in the level of risk, or that the risk has become unacceptable should result in immediate intervention by the supervising authority.

Assessment of risk factors during the offender’s supervision and re-incarceration

In assessing whether risk has changed since the offender's release, Board members will review and analyze:

• the reasons for the decision that led to the current release program including the reasons for any dissenting votes;
• the offender's progress in addressing the correctional plan while in the community and identified needs and risk factors;
• the offender’s behaviour since release (including time unlawfully at large, and if applicable, since re-incarceration);
• the number and reasons for previous suspensions and revocations of conditional release;
• a comparison of the behaviour with previous patterns of criminal behaviour;
• any professional opinions and/or information from others regarding behaviour on current release, and if applicable, since re-incarceration;
• the circumstances surrounding the breach of any release condition and measures taken or proposed as a result of the breach;
• what the offender did to modify the risk factors that led to any revocation and what benefit was derived during the period of re-incarceration;
• the release plan and community management strategies for continuing the release;
• the parole officer's overall risk assessment ; and
• recommendations regarding the conditions, if any, under which the offender could remain in the community on parole or statutory release.

Remedial action

Reprimand

A reprimand is an official warning to the offender that a continuation of the behaviour may lead to a revocation.

The Board will issue a reprimand, in writing:

• if the offender's behaviour although serious does not place society at undue risk, but raises concerns about a potential increase in the level of risk the offender may pose to the community; and/or
• to caution the offender that the behaviour is inappropriate and to reiterate the consequences of continuing such behaviour.

Delay the effect of cancellation

A delay of the effect of the cancellation represents a restrictive option. It must be used only in those circumstances where there has been a previous suspension for violation of conditions during the offender's sentence. Furthermore, the violation of conditions should be serious enough to warrant sanction or intervention, but not serious enough to warrant a revocation of the release.

A delay of the effect of cancellation will be based on but not limited to:

• investigating or finalizing a release plan that would assist the parole supervisor in managing the risk upon re-release or facilitate the offender's reintegration;
• successful completion of an institutional program before re-release;
• the need to accommodate a delay in acceptance to a program or a community-based residential facility;
• a disciplinary measure in view of repeated violations of conditions.

In the referral to the Board, CSC will document the offender's status and previous history of suspensions and revocations so that the Board has sufficient information to make a decision on a delay of cancellation.

Decision and reasons

The written decision and reasons are the Board members' official record of the review process and will reflect the analysis that Board members have undertaken during the decision-making process. Board members must summarise, in language that is clear, concise, and understandable, their overall assessment of the offender, including any relevant information obtained orally during the hearing. This summary will help to ensure that anyone reading the decision and reasons will have a full understanding of the rationale to continue the release, or to terminate or revoke it.

The summary must include : 

• an analytical statement of all relevant aspects of the offender's case, including those factors related to the risk to re-offend and the needs or other areas requiring intervention;
• an analysis and evaluation of the offender's release plans and of the community management strategies to be employed during any remaining period of supervision;
• a concluding assessment of whether or not the release of the offender would constitute an undue risk to society.

The reasons should not refer to personal information about a third party.

If a reprimand is issued or the effect of cancellation is delayed, it must be documented in the decision and reasons.

In case of dissenting votes, the views of each Board member must be documented as well as the reasons for the variance.

Cross reference

7.1 Release Conditions

CSC policies on community supervision and post-release decision process.

Implementation date

2009-03-31

8.2 Recredit of remission

Legislative reference

Sections 6.(4.1) and 6.(9) of the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

Purpose

To outline the requirements on the recredit of remission, forfeited as a result of a revocation of parole, for offenders under the jurisdiction of the National Parole Board.

Policies

The Board will review a case for recredit of remission upon application by or on behalf of an offender requesting the recredit of remission forfeited as a result of revocation of parole.

Where an offender forfeits remission due to the revocation of release, only in exceptional circumstances will the Board recredit remission.

Where the Board is of the opinion that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the recredit of remission, those circumstances and the reasons to justify the decision, and the exact recredit (# of days) are to be documented clearly by the Board on the decision sheet.

Implementation date

January 24, 1996

8.3 Offenders with a Long-term Supervision Order

Legislative reference

Criminal Code sections 753(5)(a), 753.1, 753.2, 753.3, 753.4 and 760; Corrections and Conditional Release Act, sections 99.1, 134.1, 134.2, 135.1.

Purpose

To establish policies governing the responsibilities of the National Parole Board with respect to offenders whom the courts have designated as long-term offenders during the long-term supervision part of their sentence.

Release Conditions and Information Sharing with the Offender

Special conditions imposed on parole or statutory release do not automatically carry over to long-term supervision. If required, they must be imposed specifically for the long-term supervision.

If the Correctional Service of Canada recommends any special conditions, the offender shall be informed that he/she may submit a written opinion about the proposed conditions to the Board within 15 days after sharing.

If special conditions are imposed, the Board decision will normally be given no later than one month before the long-term supervision period commences and as soon as possible after the period allowed the offender for response has elapsed. This timeframe will allow the offender the opportunity to respond to any special conditions, other than those recommended by the Correctional Service of Canada, which the National Parole Board may decide to impose, and for the Board to consider any such response.

The NPB policy on Release Conditions (7.1) applies. Because the offender, however, is no longer under warrant, any special condition that restricts the offender to a particular place or area must be justified, and why alternative measures will not suffice must be fully documented. For example, access to specific programs is required, or the location is necessary for the offender to receive adequate supervision. Exceptional care must be taken in writing and imposing special conditions on these offenders to ensure they are clear, reasonable and enforceable, and specific to those characteristics and behaviours of the offender which could lead to substantial risk to the community [Criminal Code ss.753.1(2)].

Condition to reside in a community-based residential facility

Given the restrictive nature of a condition to reside, it is essential that information is presented to enable the Board to form the conclusion that the condition is reasonable and necessary to manage the offender, to assist in the offender's gradual reintegration into the community and to prevent the offender from returning to criminal activity.

Review of condition to reside

If a condition to reside in a CBRF is imposed it will be limited to a maximum of 180 days.

If no decision is taken by the Board to continue the condition to reside, the condition will expire.

It is expected that the parole supervisor will request the removal of a condition to reside prior to it expiring where it is no longer required based on the above-noted criteria.

Long-term supervision within six months

If the Board has reason to review the case six months or less before the long-term supervision comes into effect, and the necessary reports for long-term supervision have been submitted to the Board, special conditions in place on parole or statutory release may also be imposed on the LTSO period. Board members must explicitly reflect this in their written decision and reasons.

Suspension of long-term supervision

When CSC refers the case to the Board, the Board shall review the case as soon as possible, and within thirty days. This timeframe will help to ensure enough time within the ninety-day period for the provincial/territorial Attorney General to determine whether to lay charges of breach of condition when recommended by the Board.

NPB Post-suspension decision options

(CCRA ss.135.1(5)-(8))

If the Board orders a cancellation not to take effect until the expiration of a specified period to allow the offender to participate in a program, a special condition shall be imposed specifying the program that is to be followed, and the anticipated date of completion.

Criteria for recommending laying a charge of breach of condition

Recommending that an information be laid could initiate a court process that could result in the offender receiving a sentence of up to ten years. The assumption of the court, in designating these cases as long-term offenders, was that there was a reasonable possibility of eventual control of their risk in the community. For the Attorney General to proceed, the following will be required:

• The behaviour of the offender must have demonstrated that he or she may present a substantial risk to the community because of failure to comply with one or more conditions;
• There is clear, convincing evidence that a breach of conditions has occurred;
• The condition must have been reasonable, related to behaviour leading to substantial risk, and enforceable;
• It must be clear that the offender understood the full implications of the condition, and will not be able to argue 'reasonable excuse' for not complying successfully;
• In cases where suspensions have been cancelled by CSC and/or NPB, the deterioration of the offender must have been well documented. All alternative interventions that have been attempted by CSC and NPB must be fully documented and why the decision has now been reached that no appropriate program of supervision can be established must be explained. The reasons why the final remedy of recommending a charge be laid is now being used, following the present breach, must be clear.

National Parole Board decision documentation in these cases must be able to withstand Court scrutiny if the breach of condition charge is laid.

New charges:

New charges laid against the offender do not necessarily provide grounds for suspension, or for recommending to the Attorney General that a charge be laid against the offender. The charges must be of a type that makes it appear that the offender may pose a substantial risk to the community.

Hearings and Reviews

A post-suspension hearing is required.

A hearing is required to impose a residency condition for offenders subject to a long-term supervision order.

A hearing is not required to continue the residency condition when reviewing the case at 180 days.

A hearing is required when the total period of residency reaches one year, and on the yearly anniversary thereafter, to continue the residency condition.

If there is no NPB decision to renew a condition to reside, the condition will expire.

A hearing is not required to impose any other special condition, or to review an application to relieve, remove or vary any other conditions of the long-term supervision.

When conducting these reviews, policy 5 – Statutory Release, subsection "Board review – pre-release hearing" and subsection "Board review – post-release hearing", apply with such modifications as the circumstances require, due to the different type of release.

Emergency Medical and Compassionate Leave

Unless otherwise specified by Board members in the decision, the community correctional centre director or the responsible district director may authorize leave of up to a maximum of fifteen days per occurrence for emergency medical reasons, or up to a maximum of three days per occurrence for compassionate reasons such as death in the family or visits to the family where a serious illness occurs.

Quorum

Two Board members shall vote on all decisions relating to long-term offenders.

Records Management

The front of the hard copy file will be prominently labelled Long-term Supervision Ordered. The file will be sent to archives when the period of long-term supervision is completed. Hearing tapes should be clearly labelled LTSO to avoid inadvertent destruction after warrant expiry of the custodial sentence.

The usual time periods for destruction of files or hearing tapes apply following expiration of the long-term supervision order.

Cross references

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, sections 100, 101, 109 to 111, and 140 to 145.

NPB Policy Manual:

5 – Statutory Release

7.1 – Release Conditions

7.2 – Residency and Day Parole Leave Privileges

10.2 – Disclosure to Victims

11.2 – Registry of Decisions

CSC policy on Long-Term Supervision Orders.

Implementation date

2007-03-21

9. Hearings and Reviews

9.1 Reviews

Legislative reference

Subsections 123(5) and 138(5) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance on when to conduct a review for parole earlier than the time required by subsection 123(5) of the legislation following a denial or revocation of release of the offender.

Policy

The Board will conduct an earlier review for parole, when information and a recommendation are received from correctional authorities indicating that the offender, if released, will not present an undue risk to society.

The documentation from correctional authorities must address any issues or concerns expressed in the reasons for the previous Board decision to deny or revoke release.

Reviews earlier than required by legislation should take place in any appropriate case and particularly in the case of offenders serving relatively short sentences where waiting two years would not serve the interests of public safety.

Cross references

NPB Policy Manual:

9.2 Hearings

3.1 Unescorted Temporary Absences

4.1 Day Parole

4.3 Accelerated Parole Review

6 Detention

9.6 Adjournments

10.1 Disclosure to Offender.

Effective date

2007-04-04

9.2 Hearings

Legislative reference

Section 140 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

General

The exercising of a decision making power, especially when it affects an individual's rights (e.g. liberty), must respect the duty to act fairly. As decision-makers, Board members must abide by this duty that has as one of its components the right to be heard. In some cases, as stated in legislation, this right encompasses the right to a hearing.

The Board is committed to the principle of quality hearings in support of quality decision-making. Hearings provide a forum for Board members to review information with the offender and other participants, and afford the offender and the offender's assistant the opportunity to make in-person representations to the Board. Hearings also permit members to clarify with the offender and case management staff any area of concern.

Hearings before the Board are administrative processes in nature with no formal rules of evidence.

Hallmarks of a Quality Hearing

The Board is committed to its responsibility to respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and to be responsive to the special needs of women, Aboriginal peoples and to other groups of offenders with special requirements. The following Hallmarks serve to guide Board members in their responsibility for the conduct and integrity of the hearing and in professionally managing the decision-making process.

A quality hearing promoting the duty to act fairly uses an approach that is:

• respectful of all those present;
• focused on the statutory criteria for assessing whether or not the offender presents an undue risk to society;
• well managed and that those who are actively participating are well prepared and legislation, case law, and policy are adhered to;
• conducive to the gathering of additional information and facilitating a more accurate understanding of the offender through the use of an interviewing style that uses plain language to accommodate various physical and mental health conditions and literacy levels and facilitates open dialogue. Qualified interpreters provide language interpretation services when required;
• inclusive and flexible allowing Board members to hear from those persons who have information on the case. The offender, and others present, know they are heard;
• responsive to gender and cultural differences demonstrating a sensitivity and an understanding of who the offender is as an individual in his/her community. Qualified cultural interpreters provide services when required; and
• informative and all those present have a clear understanding of the decision to be made, as well as of the hearing and deliberation processes.

Board members should consider the physical environment where the hearing will be conducted so that those present can hear the proceedings. The removal of physical barriers may also be considered.

Hearing – discretionary

If not required by law, the Board may still choose to conduct a review by way of a hearing, if the Regional Vice-Chairperson and/or the Regional Director believe that it is desirable to do so based on an assessment of any relevant factor, including:

• the decision may result in the first release of the offender, or the first release of the offender following a revocation of day parole, full parole or statutory release;
• the criminal history of the offender, including a history of violence;
• previous history of breaches of release conditions or failures on conditional release;
• the extent and purpose of the proposed release plan;
• the date of the previous review; or
• decision comments from any previous review or the current review.

Video conferencing at hearings

While the Board will normally conduct hearings in person, there may be circumstances where the use of video conferencing is appropriate and/or necessary to facilitate a quality hearing.

While recognizing that video conferencing is an effective tool for conducting hearings, the Board must ensure that the duty to act fairly, including the right to be heard, is respected and legislative provisions are followed.

Use of video conferencing at a hearing

The Regional Vice-Chairperson and/or the Regional Director will decide if video conferencing will be used at a given hearing and who will participate by way of video conferencing.

Video conferencing may be an appropriate option in certain circumstances, including: to meet urgent deadlines, when severe weather conditions prevent the safe travel by Board members; where it would facilitate the participation of NPB and/or CSC staff; and, victims in exceptional circumstances who would otherwise be unable to attend for reasons of undue hardship, as assessed on a case by case basis.

One Board member should be present in person at the hearing. In exceptional circumstances all Board members may participate by video conferencing.

Normally persons participating by video conferencing must use the CSC and NPB infrastructure and equipment authorized for that purpose. Use of external video conferencing must be made in consultation with the National Office.

The decision and reasons will indicate if video conferencing was used.

Information for Offenders

The offender will be advised in advance that the hearing will be conducted with the use of video conferencing.

In addition to the procedural safeguards, the offender will be informed about how the hearing will proceed using the technology.

Conducting the Hearing by Video Conferencing

The Board member(s) participating by video conferencing must:

• have available, all information that is available to any Board member(s) present in person at the hearing;
• be able to see and hear the offender and vice versa;
• be active participants and be able to stop the proceedings at any point if experiencing any difficulties in participating.

Hearings by telephone

A hearing may be conducted with one Board member participating by telephone, when video conferencing technology is not available.

For hearings by telephone, the measures described above under Information for Offenders and Conducting the Hearing by Video Conferencing apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require.

Offenders serving less than 2 years – Hearings / Quorum

The review of the case of an offender serving a sentence of less than two years for an offence that resulted in the death of a person shall be by way of a hearing and shall consist of a panel of two members of the Board.

Procedural safeguards

Prior to the commencement of a hearing, the Board will verify that all procedural safeguards have been respected. If a procedural safeguard has not been met, the offender may be unable to present the case properly. In cases such as this, when legislative time frames permit and the delay will not result in a loss of jurisdiction by the Board, the offender may choose whether to go on with the hearing or reschedule it at a later date.

Confidential information

Information relevant and essential to decision-making must be shared with the offender. When information is withheld from the offender, pursuant to subsection 141(4) of the Act, the offender must be informed that confidential information has been considered in making the decision (refer to the policy on Disclosure of information).

If confidential information becomes available to the Board during the hearing, the information will be received in the absence of the offender or other persons present, and will be recorded on a separate tape.

After the Board members receive the confidential information, they will decide whether it is relevant and if the information or a "gist" thereof can be shared with the offender, given the requirements of subsection 141(4) of the Act.

New information on criminal activity

The Board recognizes that an offender may reveal information during a hearing about criminal activity not previously divulged or currently before the courts. Offenders will be made aware that such information could be used in other proceedings.

Who attends the hearing

In addition to those persons who would normally be in attendance at a hearing, Board members may require the presence of other Board and Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) staff to provide information and support services.

Persons interested in the hearing process in general and not with the case of a particular offender may be given permission by the Board to be in attendance at a hearing, unless the Board concludes that any of the possible situations described in subsection 140(4) the Act is likely to exist. The persons may include members and staff of the Board, staff of CSC, representatives from provincial or territorial correctional systems in relation to their professional activities, and individuals who wish to obtain a better understanding of the conditional release process. All persons will be required to respect the confidentiality of the proceedings and the privacy interests of the offender.

Presence of Board members/staff during the deliberation part of the hearing process for training purposes

Preamble

Permitting Board members and staff to be present during the deliberation part of a hearing, provides a good learning opportunity on how Board members arrive at a conditional release decision. This is consistent with the legislated requirement (s. 150(2) of the Act) regarding training for Board members.

At the same time, the Board must bear in mind the principles of natural justice and its duty to ensure the fairness of the decision-making process

Policy

Board members/staff may be present during the deliberation part of the hearing process for training purposes, as determined on a case by case basis.

To ensure fairness, the following process will be adhered to:

• the offender will be informed prior to or at the commencement of the hearing that Board members/staff will be present during the deliberations for training purposes, but will not provide any new information, discuss or contribute in any manner to the decision being made;
• any concerns by the offender will be considered by the Board prior to commencement of the hearing.

Cross references

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, section 141 and subsection 143(1)

Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, sections 147-154 and 164

NPB Policy Manual:

9.3 Observers at Hearings

9.4 Assistants at Hearings

9.5 Interpreters

9.6 Adjournments

9.7 Waiver of Review or Hearing

9.8 Postponements of Review

Section 10 – Disclosure of Information

11.1 Records of Proceedings

11.2 Registry of Decisions

NPB Code of Professional Conduct

Guidelines – Video Conferencing at Hearings.

Implementation date

2009-03-30

9.2.1 Hearings for Aboriginal Offenders

Legislative References

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, section 140 and subsection 151(3) and Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, section 164.

Purpose

The purpose of a hearing with an Elder/Advisor is to create a responsive hearing process for Aboriginal offenders (First Nations, Inuit, and Metis) while adhering to the established criteria for decision-making. A non-Aboriginal offender, who is committed to an Aboriginal way of life, may also request a hearing with an Elder/Advisor. This request must be in writing, and the signed form indicating this request must be on file. At the time of the request, the offender will be made aware of the dynamics of, and those who may be present at, this type of hearing.

The Role of the Elder/Advisor

The role of the Elder/Advisor is to provide Board members with information about the specific cultures and traditions of the Aboriginal population the offender is affiliated with, and/or Aboriginal cultures, experiences, and traditions in general.

The Elder/Advisor may be an active participant in the hearing and may ask about the offender's understanding of Aboriginal traditions and spirituality, progress towards healing and rehabilitation, and readiness of the community to receive the offender if return to the community is part of the release plan. The Elder/ Advisor may speak with the offender in an Aboriginal language to gain a better understanding of the offender, and to assist the Board members with gaining further information helpful to achieving a quality decision. The Elder/Advisor will summarise such an exchange for the Board members and others at the hearing before the decision is made.

The Elder/Advisor may also offer wisdom and guidance to the offender and may advise the Board members during the deliberation stage of the hearing to provide insights and comments with respect to cultural and spiritual concerns.

Persons present during the Hearing

In determining who may be present during the hearing, the Board will take into consideration Aboriginal relationship values which may influence the offender's rehabilitation and reintegration, such as, the importance of the offender's family¹, the community, and its leaders and Elders.

An offender may ask to have another Elder, visiting the institution or from the community, attend the hearing. This Elder does not participate in deliberations.

If the hearing is held in a circle, victims may be present in the circle if the Board members, Elder/ Advisor, and victim are all in agreement; otherwise, the victim will read his/her statement as in policy 10.3 – Information from Victims. The offender's views will also be considered.

Steps will be taken, prior to the hearing, to ensure the victim is aware of the implications of this type of hearing.

The Hearing

Board members may brief the Elder/Advisor before the hearing about the offender appearing for review. This briefing would be based on information that has been shared with the offender.

¹ For Aboriginal people, "family" may extend to include not only those family relationships that exist by birth but others who are not related by birth, but who are given the title of grandparent, parent, brother, sister, aunt, uncle or other relative and who have as significant a relationship with the person as a blood relative.

If the hearing is held in a circle, it is the function of the Board members, as in all hearings, to manage the hearing. Part of the protocol of the circle includes the Elder/Advisor, either prior to or at the beginning of the hearing, conducting an appropriate cultural ceremony and/or saying a prayer, if the offender requests it.

Prior to the start of the hearing, the procedural safeguards, including the offender's agreement to have a cultural hearing, will be verified with the offender. At that time, the offender will be given a brief explanation of the role of the Elder/Advisor.

Cross References

CCRA section 141 and subsections 143(1) and 151(3)

CCRR sections 147 to 154 and 164

NPB Policy Manual:

2.1 Assessment for Pre-Release Decisions – Decision-Making Criteria and Process

9.2 Hearings

9.3 Observers

9.4 Assistants at Hearings

10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 related to Disclosure of Information

Board Member Code of Conduct.

Implementation Date

2007-08-28

9.3 Observers at hearings

Legislative reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, subsections 140(4)-(6).

Purpose

The National Parole Board permits observers to attend specific hearings to increase the openness of its decision-making, the accountability of the Board, and to contribute to the public's understanding of the decision-making process.

Definition

Observers are persons authorized by the Board to attend an offender's hearing to only observe the proceedings.

General

Normally observers will be permitted to be present during the entirety of the hearing; although, only the Board members are present at the time of deliberation.

The authority to permit observers should be interpreted liberally since Board members will have the authority not only to admit observers to the hearing but also may require individuals to leave the hearing at any time that the members consider it necessary in accordance with s.s. 140(5) of the Act.

Normally, persons under the age of eighteen will not be allowed to attend as observers. This is due to the nature of the subject matter commonly discussed at hearings. Exceptions will be considered on a case by case basis.

Authorization to attend a hearing

Authorization to attend a hearing is specific to that hearing, and any subsequent request to attend a hearing must receive Board approval.

Conditions governing observers

Persons who wish to attend a hearing must submit a written request to the Board for observer status. They must also agree to comply with all conditions established at the time of the hearing by the Board members. The request must be made sufficiently far in advance to ensure that the Board can make an informed decision regarding authorization.

Media requests for attendance at hearings

For media observers who have a valid security clearance – applications will be required 2 days in advance of the hearing date; for those who do not have a valid security clearance, applications will be required 15 days in advance of the hearing date.

The members may, at times, request that an observer(s) leave the hearing room for a portion of, or the hearing in its entirety for a reason indicated in paras. 140.(4) (a) to (d) of the Act.

Provision of an explanation

A person who has been denied permission to attend as an observer will be given an explanation.

A denial of authorization to attend a hearing is not appealable.

Notification to the offender

Offenders will be notified of any person who has applied to observe at their hearing. The offender will be informed in the letter of notification that the observer will be permitted to attend the hearing unless the Board is advised of, and is satisfied that, any of the criteria in paras. 140.(4)(a)-(d) of the Act are met.

Cross reference

9.2 Hearings

Effective date

September 11, 1996

9.4 Assistants at hearings

Legislative Reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, subsections 140(7) and (8), and paragraphs 140(4)(a) to (d).

Purpose

To inform and guide the Board regarding assistants for offenders at National Parole Board hearings.

Role of the Assistant

The role of the assistant before the Board is to support and advise the offender, and in that capacity includes addressing the Board members. The role does not extend to the role of counsel as found in the court process.

Arrangements and expenses

The offender is responsible for making the necessary arrangements for the assistant to attend the hearing. Neither the National Parole Board nor the Correctional Service of Canada bear any responsibility for those arrangements nor for any costs incurred by the offender or the assistant.

Number of assistants allowed

Should an offender request the presence of more than one person for assistance at the hearing, the Board members will require that one individual be designated as the assistant who will advise the offender and address the Board.

The Board may find it necessary to limit the number of such persons attending the hearing to ensure that an efficient and effective hearing takes place. Any such limitation will be established after considering the circumstances of the hearing room and the other persons who are required to be at the hearing or who have been granted permission to attend the hearing.

Assistant not available

If the assistant is unable to attend the hearing, the offender will be consulted to determine whether or not the hearing should proceed. If the offender elects to postpone the hearing, up to a 3 month delay may ensue before it is possible to reschedule it.

The members maintain the discretion to decide whether to postpone and reschedule the hearing or to proceed with the hearing. The members must indicate in the written decision, the reasons for proceeding with the hearing.

Cross reference

Policies on hearings, observers at hearings, interpreters, waivers and postponements.

Effective date

September 11, 1996

9.5 Interpreters

Legislative Reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, subsection 140(9).

Purpose

The use of interpreters supports the Board's commitment to ensuring that the offender is aware of, and understands all relevant information provided to the Board for the hearing and also understands the proceedings of the hearing.

Arrangements and expenses

The Correctional Service of Canada is responsible for ensuring that the offender is aware of the right to have an interpreter. CSC makes the necessary arrangements and pays all expenses for interpreter services.

Impartiality of the Interpreter

Wherever possible, the interpreter should be certified. Spouses and other family members or friends of the offender should not normally be used as interpreters except where no other interpreter is available. Institutional personnel such as chaplains or native counsellors may be used as interpreters if the offender makes such a request and the Board agrees.

Interpreter not available

The Board will consult with the offender if an interpreter is not available and determine if the fairness of the hearing would be compromised by proceeding in the absence of an interpreter. If the offender does not agree to a postponement, the Board will proceed with the review. However, if, in the view of the Board a hearing cannot effectively be held, the Board should either postpone or deny release and set a new review date when an interpreter will be available.

Recording of the Decision

A key role of the interpreter at the hearing is to ensure that the Board's decision and any release conditions are articulated clearly and fully explained to the offender. The written reasons for the decision will be provided in the official language used during the hearing. The interpreter may be asked to record, in the language understood by the offender, the decision, reasons for the decision, and the conditions of release. This will enable the offender to review them subsequent to the hearing. The interpreter's recording will be annexed to the decision sheet.

Cross reference

Disclosure of information: Guide for staff

Implementation date

September 11, 1996

9.6 Adjournments

Legislative Reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, subsections 122(3); 123(4); and 135(5). Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, 156(5), 157(4), 158(4), and 163(1).

Purpose

To provide guidance to Board members and staff on the use of adjournments of reviews.

Definition

An adjournment of a review is a temporary suspension of that review.

Day parole, full parole and UTA reviews

Additional information

If the Board adjourns a review to obtain further information, the same Board members will continue the review following receipt of the information. In circumstances where it is not possible to use the same members, a new review will be necessary.

Further time

If the Board adjourns a day or full parole review to allow more time to render a decision, the same Board members who conducted the review will render the decision.

Completing the review

The Board may render a decision without resuming the hearing:

• when no new information is received – for example, the adjournment is only for the purpose of rendering the decision; or
• when new information is received between the adjournment and the rendering of the decision, if
• the decision results in the release of the offender, or
• in the case of a denial, the offender has had the opportunity to address the elements of the new information.

Detention review

The Board may adjourn a detention review at the request of the offender, but the review must resume as soon as possible. The offender must be made aware that no release will occur prior to the Board making a final decision.

When the review resumes, the same Board members will continue the review at the point of adjournment. In circumstances where it is not possible to use the same members, a new review will be necessary.

Post-suspension review

If, at the request of the offender, the Board adjourns a post-suspension review, the review must resume as soon as possible.

When the review resumes, the same Board members will continue the review at the point of adjournment. In circumstances where it is not possible to use the same members, a new review will be necessary.

Cross reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, subsection 143(3); National Parole Board policy on detention, waivers, and postponements.

Effective date

September 9, 1996

9.7 Waiver of review or hearing

Legislative reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, ss. 123(2) and 140(1).

Purpose

To provide guidance to Board members and staff on the use and acceptance of a waiver, i.e. a declaration, in writing, by an offender advising the Board that the offender does not want a hearing or review.

General

The Board considers, whenever possible, day and full parole release during the same review. It is important, therefore, that CSC case managers ensure that offenders are made aware of and understand the purpose of their right to a review or hearing, and the consequences of waiving that right.

Waivers will not be accepted from offenders who have been certified or declared legally unable to manage for themselves. Guardians appointed by the courts to exercise the rights for such offenders, may submit a waiver on their behalf.

In order that an offender who wishes to waive a hearing or review be duly informed concerning the consequences of waiving, CSC case managers will make every reasonable effort to ensure that the waiver is submitted using a standard waiver form. This form is valid only if signed by the offender.

A waiver applies only to the specific hearing or review waived, and is valid until the next review date required by legislation (two years) or policy 9.1 Reviews. An offender, who waives the hearing, but not the review, shall be advised that written representations may be forwarded to the Board within 15 days of the waiver. The Board will not complete the review until after 15 days from the date of the waiver of the hearing.

If an offender revokes a waiver, it is only valid if the Board receives the written notice of revocation of the waiver prior to the date of review. In such instances the Board will conduct the review as soon as practical following the receipt of all documentation required to review the case.

Refusal to sign standard waiver form

If an offender wants to waive a review or hearing but refuses to sign a standard waiver form, CSC case managers will document that fact on the form and indicate whether they believe the offender understood the consequences of submitting the waiver. On the basis of this information, the Board will decide whether to accept the waiver.

Refusal to attend a hearing

If an offender does not attend a hearing, but refuses to sign a waiver, the Board will complete the review without a hearing if the Board believes that every attempt was made to obtain a waiver. In these circumstances, Board members should be presented with documentation supporting, or indicate on the decision sheet, the fact that the offender is aware of the consequences of not attending the panel.

Cross reference

Policy on adjournments, postponements and reviews.

Effective date

September 11, 1996

9.8 – Postponement of review

Legislative reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s.141 (3). Regulations s. 157(3) & 158(3).

Purpose

To provide guidance to Board members and staff on postponements, i.e. a delay of a hearing or review, usually at the request of the offender, anytime before it begins.

General

When a hearing or review is postponed, it should commence as soon as it is practicable thereafter, but normally not longer than three months from the month of postponement.

An offender may request a postponement for reasons that may include but are not limited to:

• a procedural safeguard cannot be met before the date of the review; or
• the offender wishes to complete an assessment, treatment or training program before the review;
• the offender's assistant is unable to be present at the hearing.

If a postponement will result in a legislative or regulatory timeframe not being met, the offender must be informed of this fact and be asked to indicate, in writing, the request for postponement and awareness of the missed timeframe.

Last minute postponements

If an offender requests a postponement for a valid reason, as outlined above, but the Board has reasonable grounds to believe that the offender is using the reason in order to frustrate or control the system (ex. to avoid having a hearing in the presence of an observer), the Board may proceed with the review despite the request for postponement, in order to avoid abuse of the postponement process. Normally this measure would be taken only following several previous postponements by the offender.

Board members must document, on the decision sheet, the reasons for refusing a request for postponement.

Cross reference

Policy on adjournments and waivers.

Effective date

September 11, 1996

9.9 Scheduling of Board members for reviews

Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance on the scheduling of Board members for reviews.

General

The scheduling of Board members for reviews is important in helping to achieve the Mission. The core values and strategic objectives of the Board guide the process.

Policy

Board members will be scheduled for reviews in a manner that is without bias or the perception of bias, and that promotes quality decision-making and optimizes use of resources. The scheduling of Board members will not otherwise be influenced by requests, expressed or implied, concerning a particular Board member.

A Regional Vice-Chairperson who has made a decision to not direct that an offender be released on parole, in the first stage of an accelerated parole review, will not participate in the scheduling of Board members to the second stage to avoid any appearance of bias or influence.

The workload of the Board will be distributed as evenly as possible among the members, while ensuring the effective and efficient use of resources.

Implementation Date

2000-06-07

10. Disclosure of Information

10.1 – Disclosure to Offender

Legislative reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act (s.141).

Purpose

To provide guidance to Board members and staff on the disclosure of information to offenders for decision-making.

The disclosing of relevant information is a key component of the principles of fundamental justice. Disclosure must be undertaken in a manner which allows the offender to properly prepare for the review by the Board.

Disclosure to offenders'

All relevant information considered by the Board for decision-making must be provided to the offender, in writing and in the official language requested, at least fifteen days (not including the day the information is shared or the day of the review by the Board) before the day set for the review of the case, in accordance with the requirements of subsection 141(1) of the Act.

As well, relevant information received within fifteen days of a review must be provided to the offender, in writing, as soon as possible thereafter.

Exception

Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that any information should not be disclosed on the grounds of public interest, or that its disclosure would jeopardize the safety of any person, the security of a correctional institution, or the conduct of any lawful investigation, as much information as is strictly necessary in order to protect the interest identified may be withheld. The withholding of relevant information should occur rarely.

The grounds for withholding the information must be documented on the Board's decision sheet.

The grounds for determining that the information should be withheld must be convincing and supported with facts relative to the public interest said to be protected by the non-disclosure. There must be a direct and observable link between the content of that information and the protection of the public interest served by the non-disclosure.

In the rare circumstance that one of the grounds for withholding relevant information is met, the offender will be provided as much information as possible but without divulging the confidential aspect of the information. There must be sufficient detail to allow the offender to know the substance of the information adverse to the offender's cause, and allow the offender a fair opportunity to respond to the allegation(s) contained in the document.

Process for sharing

The C.S.C. has agreed to carry out the "sharing" of the relevant information with the offender. This includes the preparing of a summary of the information to be shared with the offender if one of the grounds for withholding information is met.

The Board is responsible for confirming that all relevant information considered by the Board for decision-making has been shared with the offender. The Board, therefore, must be satisfied that any summary of confidential information provided to the offender complies with s. 141(4) of the Act. For this reason, a copy of the summary and of the confidential documentation itself are required by the Board.

Photographs and videos

If relevant information considered by the Board is in the form of a photograph or video, the offender will be permitted access to view the photograph or video within the usual timeframes for the disclosing of information, and until the hearing takes place.

The photograph, video or copy thereof, shall not be given to the offender or placed in the offender's possession.

Information to Assistants

If an assistant requests a copy of the information that has already been shared with the offender for decision-making purposes, the assistant must obtain that information from the offender.

Cross reference

Information sharing – guide for staff

Effective date

April 2, 1997

10.2 Disclosure to victims

Legislative references

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Subsections 99(1), and 142(1-5).

Preamble

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act allows victims to receive certain information about the offender who harmed them which will enable them to follow the offender through the correctional system and to know about National Parole Board decisions relating to that offender.

The Act specifies the extent of such information, and subsections 99(1) and 142(3) define the persons who may be accepted as victims to whom information may be released. Individuals must meet both criteria in subsection 142(3) to receive information about the offender not otherwise available to the public.

Entitlement to information

Victims are entitled to basic information about an offender, including eligibility and review dates for unescorted temporary absences and parole. More information may be released to victims under criteria set out in paragraph 142(1)(b). Initial requests from victims or their agents should be in writing to the Board. Information available to victims about offenders shall not be disclosed until it has been verified that the person is indeed a victim of the offender so named in the request.

Agent

An agent is an individual who is authorized, in writing, to act for the victim. The Board must be satisfied that the victim has given the person the authority to act. A written request sent by a victim service agency based in the criminal justice system (e.g., court or police based) or from court officials does not require the victim's signature.

Boards of Investigation

Victims of incidents which result in a Board of Investigation in which the National Parole Board is a participant will be considered for recognition under the criteria in Subsection 142(3) of the CCRA. This will give them the same entitlements to information about the offender who harmed them as victims of previous events. When their identity is established in reports relating to the incident, no further verification is needed.

In addition, they should be provided with NPB publications about the investigation process. If they choose, information about the stage of the investigation in terms of when the report may be completed and available may be provided through the Regional Director in consultation with the Manager, Case Audits and Investigation.

Authority for disclosure

The Act authorizes the Chairperson to decide whether additional specified information may be released (ss 142(1)(b)), and whether an individual meets the criteria of subsection 142(3). The Chairperson, as provided in subsection 142(5), has extended authority for making these decisions to Regional Vice-Chairpersons, Regional Directors, Regional Managers Conditional Release, Regional Managers Community Relations and Training, and Regional Communications Officers.

Information which may be disclosed

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act specifies the type of information that the Board may give to victims. Information to which victims are entitled, on request, is detailed in paragraph 142(1)(a).

In addition, the Act (142(1)(b)) requires review of a request for certain further information to determine whether its release is justified on the grounds that the interest of the victim in such disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of the offender's privacy that could result from the disclosure. In each case it must be determined whether the requested information will be disclosed. The decision-maker must weigh the victim's interest in disclosure against the offender's privacy. Factors which should be considered include:

• the interests of the victim;
• the nature of the information;
• the relevancy of the information to the interests of the victim;
• the circumstances surrounding the request;
• the timeliness of the information;
• the effect of disclosure on the offender and on others associated with the offender, such as family members or prospective employers, especially in relation to re-integration;
• the effect of non-disclosure on the victim and the victim's family;
• the possible consequences of disclosure or non-disclosure; and
• the potential use of the information. Except in cases where the safety of the victim could be a factor, destination should be stated, if at all, in very general terms (major urban centre, regional area or province).

Notification of continuing interest

Victims may write to the Board to say they want to receive such information continuously. They must then ensure that the National Parole Board has their current address and telephone number to enable the Board to provide this service.

Documentation of information given to victims

A record will be kept whenever information is given to a victim, including the nature of the information disclosed.

Other requests for information

The NPB/CSC Use and Disclosure Code guides the release of:

• information to victims not detailed in the Act; or
• all information to others, including the general public and media representatives.

People other than victims asking for information about an offender should be told they may make a written request for access to the decision registry.

Cross-References

Corrections and Conditional Release Act section 144, subsections 2(1), 26(1-4) and 140(4-6)

NPB Policy Manual:

9.3 – Observers at Hearings

11.2 – Registry of decisions.

Effective date

2009-09-14

10.3 – Information from victims

Legislative references

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, sections 2, 23(1)(e), 25(1), 99(1), 101(b), 125(3), 132, 141 and 142(3).

Preamble

The National Parole Board (the Board) is committed to inclusive processes for victims of crime in the conditional release system, within the framework of the relevant legislative and policy authorities. As such, the Board welcomes information that victims may provide to assist the Board in the review of an offender's case.

Another key aspect of inclusion for the Board is giving victims a 'voice' by allowing them to present a statement at Parole Board hearings. These statements will give victims the opportunity at the hearing to present information directly to National Parole Board members about the continuing impact of the crime and any safety issues.

Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance to Board members and staff relating to information received from victims and the presenting of statements at hearings conducted by the Board.

Presentation of victim statements at hearings

Definition of "victim"

For the purposes of this section, "victim" means a person referred to in s. 2 of the Act and a person who meets the requirements of s.142(3) of the Act.

Policy

The Board will permit a victim to read a statement prepared and submitted in accordance with this policy, at the hearing of an offender or to present the statement in any other manner that the Board considers appropriate (for example, video/audio tape). The statement must be presented at the hearing in either of the two official languages.

The victim statement may be presented either at the beginning of the hearing, immediately following the formal opening, or at the end of the hearing following the Board member's interview with the offender or the concluding remarks by the offender's assistant.

The statement must be prepared in advance, in writing, and in the form and in accordance with any procedures established by the Board. It must be submitted to the Board in sufficient time to allow a copy of the statement to be provided to the offender, in the official language designated by the offender, at least 15 days before the day set for the hearing.

Normally, a victim must be age eighteen or over to present a statement in person at a hearing. This is due to the nature of the subject matter commonly discussed at hearings. Exceptions will be considered on a case by case basis.

Victims under the age of 18 will be permitted to present a statement via video or audio tape.

Information from victims

The use of information from victims is governed by the principles stated in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, including that the protection of society is paramount and the requirement to consider all information that is relevant to the case (section 101).

Relevant information from victims can help the Board assess:

• the nature and extent of harm suffered by the victim;
• the risk of re-offending the offender may pose if released;
• the offender's potential to commit a violent crime, particularly in cases qualifying for accelerated review, for example by providing information about threatening or previous violent or abusive behaviour;
• the offender's understanding of the impact of the offence;
• conditions necessary to manage the risk which might be presented by the offender; and
• offender's release plans. Possible repercussions must be carefully assessed if the victim is a family member, or was closely associated with the offender. If the offender intends to return to an integrated, small, or isolated community, Board members must weigh the support and control available to assist reintegration. The views of the victim are of assistance if release would place the offender near the victim.

Information sharing requirements

The Board cannot assure confidentiality for persons who supply information or for the information provided. Victims and others shall be advised that any information to be considered in the review of a case, or a summary of the information, including that provided by the victim, must be shared with the offender. However, current addresses and any name changes are not shared with the offender. Information will not be used by the Board if it is not shared with the offender except where the Board is authorized to withhold information by subsection 141(4) of the Act.

Giving information to the Board or other correctional authorities

Information from victims will be used by appropriate staff of the Board, the Correctional Service of Canada or other criminal justice authorities as part of the case preparation process. The information will be included in the offender's file and will be considered by the Board members who review the case as required in subsection 101(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Exceptionally, a situation may arise where a Board member personally receives information on a case directly from a victim, a victim's agent or other person. The member shall ensure that such information is documented in the offender's file. That Board member will not be involved in the next review of that offender.

Cross-References

9.3 – Observers at hearings & 10.2 – Disclosure to victims.

Effective date

For hearings commencing in July 2001.

11. Records of Reviews and Decisions

11.1 Records of proceedings

Legislative references

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, section 143; subsection 144(1); and Regulations, section 166.

Records of decisions and hearing proceedings

Records of decisions

The Board's decision and the reasons for the decision constitute the record of proceedings for the purposes of subsection 143(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Voice recordings of hearings

Additionally, the Board will make a voice recording of all hearings to provide an account of what occurred at each hearing and to permit review to ensure that procedural requirements which protect the rights of the offender were met. This practice enhances the accountability of the decision-making processes of the Board and assists review by the Appeal Division.

If technical difficulties make a voice recording impossible, Board members will ensure that:

• For hearings related to the detention provisions of the Act, a detailed written record is made as the hearing proceeds; or
• In all other cases, a written summary of the proceedings is made.

These written records must include:

• the names of all persons participating in the hearing and their role;
• confirmation that information has been shared with the offender and that all other procedural safeguards were met;
• any new information which may arise during the hearing; and
• whether an observer attended the hearing.

Retention of voice recordings

Voice recordings shall be kept in accordance with Treasury Board‘s Policy on Information Management.

Offender's access to voice recorded proceedings

The National Parole Board owns the master recording: however, privacy legislation states that an individual has the right to access personal information held by a government institution. Therefore, upon written request, the Board will supply the offender, without charge, one copy of the voice recording with any confidential information discussed in the absence of the offender deleted. Costs will be recovered for additional copies.

If an offender requests a copy of a recording to prepare for a hearing, the Board will provide one within fifteen days of receiving a written request if possible.

CSC access to voice recorded proceedings

The hearing tape of an offender may be released to a CSC staff person to listen to when the need to listen to the tape constitutes a use consistent with why the information on the tape was gathered in the first place. Where the need is not consistent with this purpose, those wishing to have access to an offender's hearing tape will receive it only after acquiring the offender's consent.

Cross references

Policies on the release of information to victims and the decision registry; the Privacy Act Regulations.

Implementation date

2009-03-30

11.2 Registry of decisions

Authority

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, section 144; Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, section 167.

Purpose

The registry of National Parole Board decisions and the reasons for those decisions promotes openness of decision-making and accountability of the Board. It contributes to public understanding of conditional release.

The registry allows individuals who demonstrate an interest in a specific case to access Board decisions relating to that offender. In addition, after personal identifiers are removed from the decision documents, researchers may have access to groups of decisions.

Policy

Content of the decision registry

The National Parole Board registry of decisions contains:

• Board decisions, and reasons for the decisions, relating to an offender's conditional release, recommitment, or detention made after the proclamation of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The record of the decision, including the reasons, is that which is provided to the offender, in the official language of Canada requested by the offender, as required in paragraph 143(2)(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; and
• the decisions and reasons of the Appeal Division of the Board.

Temporary absence decisions made by the Correctional Service of Canada and administrative determinations made by the National Parole Board are not recorded in the decision registry.

The National Parole Board policy on interpreters at hearings allows, but does not require, the interpreter to provide a written summary of the decision and reasons for reference by the offender and case management staff. These summaries are not part of the decision registry. However, in accordance with the principle of openness, if an interpreter provided such a summary, and an individual who speaks the same language and not one of the official languages requests decision information the Board will, if possible, release the information provided by the interpreter.

Specific case access to the decision registry

Subsection 144(2) allows access to the contents of the registry relating to a specific case to a person who demonstrates an interest in that case and who applies, in writing, to the Board. Exceptions are made for information which could reasonably be expected

• to jeopardize the safety of any person;
• to reveal a source of information obtained in confidence; or
• if released publicly, to adversely affect the reintegration of the offender into society.

Access to persons who demonstrate an interest in a case

• Individual interest will be demonstrated by a request, in writing, for access to the contents of the registry relating to a specific offender. The request must describe the nature of that interest (for example, a member of the offender's family; a community volunteer; offender's assistant; the victim; investigating police officer; media representative; etc.).
• Unless the entire hearing took place in the presence of an observer, each decision will be assessed as to whether it contains information exempted by ss.144(2). In all other instances, any such information will be obscured if the contents are released, except for information disclosed during a part of a hearing at which an observer was present. (ss.144(4)).
• If the individual requesting access to the registry is a victim, disclosure of information will be in accordance with section 142 of the Act which may allow the release of information otherwise restricted by subsection 144(2).
• Should an individual or representative of an organization request case specific information about three or more distinct cases, the National Parole Board reserves the right to make a determination that such interest constitutes research, and the request may be subject to the Regulations governing research applications.

Access for research purposes

Any person may have access for research purposes to the contents of the registry, subject to any conditions prescribed by section 167 of the Regulations. Research access will exclude the name of any person, including the offender, information that could be used to identify any person or information which could jeopardize any person's safety if disclosed.

Applications for research access are expected to come from various sources, including:

• members of the criminal justice system;
• media representatives;
• academics and students; and
• members of interest groups.

Cross reference

National Parole Board policy on interpreters at hearings; Access to Information Act and Privacy Act.

Implementation date

November 1, 1992

12. Appeals

12 Appeals

Legislative reference

Corrections and Conditional Release Act: s. 110, 143(2), 146 & 147; Regulations: 166(2) (b) & 168.

Purpose

To inform and guide the Board with regard to the jurisdiction and authority, role and functions of the Appeal Division.

Principles

The Appeal Division contributes to the quality of the decision-making process, and to the openness, professionalism and accountability of conditional release decisions.

The role of the Appeal Division is to ensure that the law and the Board policies are respected, and that the rules of fundamental justice are adhered to and that the Board's decisions are based upon relevant and reliable information.

The Appeal Division reviews the decision-making process to confirm that it was fair and that the procedural safeguards were respected.

The Appeal Division has jurisdiction to reassess the issue of risk to reoffend and to substitute its discretion for that of the original decision makers, but only where it finds that the decision was unfounded and unsupported by the information available at the time the decision was made.

Advising the offender of the right to appeal

Offenders will be notified of the right to appeal by means of the letter sent to the offender outlining the Board's decision.

The wording to be included in the notification letter is as follows:

Please note that according to law, an offender may appeal any negative decision regarding conditional release that is made by the NPB, as well as any grant that is more restrictive than what was requested. The appeal must be sent to the NPB Appeal Division in Ottawa within 60 days of the date of the decision being appealed. Further information and the appeal forms may be obtained from your parole officer.

Moreover, as part of the review of the procedural safeguards that takes place prior to the commencement of the hearing, the offender will be advised of the right to appeal, using the same or similar wording to that noted above.

Grounds for appeal

The written notice of appeal, filed by the offender, or a person acting on behalf of the offender, shall state the ground(s) for appeal, as itemized in s. 147(1) (C.C.R.A.), that the offender is alleging, together with all supporting particulars, including a statement of the unfairness, i.e., the prejudice caused to the offender as a result of the ground(s) submitted.

Explanation of grounds for appeal

Offenders will be provided with an explanation of grounds for appeal, as follows:

"Failed to observe a principle of fundamental justice": This includes any concerns regarding the fairness of the NPB procedures, for example, whether the Board properly shared information used, whether the right to an assistant was respected, whether choice of official language was respected, etc. Be specific as to how the Board didn't respect its duty to be fair.

"Error of Law": Where you wish to submit that the Board did not follow the law, or misinterpreted the law, specify as much as possible exactly what the error was about, for example, If you submit that the Board didn't follow a section of the CCRA, state what part of the act wasn't followed.

"Breached or failed to apply a policy": As with ground No. 2 above, state precisely what NPB policy you feel the Board did not follow.

"Based its decision on erroneous or incomplete information": This includes any concern that relevant information was missing, or that the Board made errors about the relevant information available.

"Acted without jurisdiction or beyond its jurisdiction, or failed to exercise its jurisdiction": This includes any concern about the Board either making decisions it did not have authority to make, or not making decisions that the law said that it could make. In addition, it involves any complaint that the NPB decision is totally unreasonable or unsupported by the information available. Again, it is important to state precisely what the error was, and if arguing that the decisions is totally unreasonable, you must explain why you feel that the Board members' conclusions are unfounded.

Frivolous and vexatious appeals (147.(2)(a) CCRA)

The Vice-Chairperson of the Appeal Division may refuse to accept an appeal without causing a full review of the case to be undertaken, where, in the opinion of the Vice-Chairperson, the grounds submitted by the offender would not, on the face of the grounds, lead to any modification of the decision rendered by the voting members.

Time limitations (147.(2)(d) CCRA & s. 168 Regulations)

Where written notice of appeal, including the grounds and any information in support of the grounds, is received beyond the 60 day period, set by regulation, the Vice-Chairperson of the Appeal Division may accept the appeal, if satisfied that the delay in appealing was justified, or that other circumstances make it desirable that the appeal proceed on the basis of the rules of natural justice or for an administrative purpose or both of them.

Applications will be reviewed in the order in which they have been received by the Appeal Division. However, cases will be reviewed on a priority basis if the application for appeal is received within three months of the statutory release date, or the offender appeals a detention order, a decision to not direct parole following an accelerated parole review, or any other case deemed by the Vice-Chairperson of the Appeal Division to be an exception.

Conduct of appeals

The review by the Appeal Division shall be conducted by way of a file review and may include, where available, a review of the voice recording of the hearing.

The Appeal Division is not restricted to a consideration of the ground(s) raised in the written notice of appeal, but will consider also, whether there has been an error or breach in the law, Board policy or in the common law duty to act fairly which has resulted in prejudice or unfairness to the offender.

Notification of decision to release

Where the Appeal Division exercises its discretion to grant release directly, the Division shall ensure that all persons who are entitled to know of the release of the offender have been notified.

Implementation of decisions rendered by the Appeal division

In order to ensure fairness of process, where the Appeal Division has ordered a new review/hearing, the office of the Chairperson will be advised of cases where the ordered review/hearing has not occurred within two months of the decision to order a new review/hearing.

Where, through the appeal process, a practice is identified which raises a concern with respect to the review of cases within a region, the Vice-Chairperson of the Appeal Division will, in writing, advise the Regional Vice-Chairperson of the practice and the concern. The Regional Vice-Chairperson will respond, in writing outlining what action, if any, will be taken regarding the practice.

Communication of decisions

The Appeal Division shall ensure that copies of its decisions are circulated to the Vice-Chairperson of the region.

Effective date

2001-04-23

13. Miscellaneous

13.1 Communicable diseases – Aids

Authority

Corrections and Conditional Release Act and Regulations.

Purpose

To provide guidance to Board Members in making conditional release decisions in cases where an offender has tested positive to the HIV virus, and therefore may or may not have developed Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

Policy

The basic element of the policy is that risk assessment is focused on the previous behaviour or documented expressions of intent by the offender, and not on HIV status alone. HIV status will be a factor for consideration in decision making only when parole by exception for humanitarian reasons is proposed.

• HIV status in and of itself is not a factor in risk assessment or decision making. In its risk assessment and decision making, NPB will not require information on whether or not an inmate tests HIV antibody positive.
• The Board is committed to giving full consideration to applications for release, including parole by exception, where necessary in order to ensure medical treatment or palliative care not otherwise available within the institution. The Board is sensitive to humanitarian considerations with respect to all terminally ill offenders. Consideration for release must always take place within the context of the risk to society.
• The Board will consider in its risk assessment evidence of behaviour or expressed intent which demonstrates wanton disregard for public safety and which may cause loss of life or serious harm, such as through HIV transmission, and may use such evidence in reaching its decision.
• The Board is committed to ensuring that training and education in the understanding of the medical and social dimensions of HIV infection is available to Board members and staff.

Cross reference

Parole by exception.

Implementation date

May 1, 1991

13.2 – Prohibition from driving

Authority

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, section 109.

Purpose

This policy is intended to guide the Board's reviews of applications for the cancellation or modification of prohibitions imposed under section 259, Criminal Code of Canada.

Background

The authority vested in the Board by section 109 is similar to the clemency powers exercised by the Governor in Council in that it is a broad discretionary power that permits remedies that directly interfere with an order of a criminal court. It is not an integral part of the correctional process, as is the case with conditional release.

Policy

The National Parole Board may approve the cancellation or modification of a prohibition order made pursuant to section 259 of the Criminal Code where:

• There is evidence of undue hardship, including economic, mental, or physical suffering or privation that is substantial and out of proportion to the nature of the offence for which the prohibition was ordered;
• Other remedies to the identified hardship do not exist, are not lawfully available in the individual case, or recourse to them would result in greater hardship;
• There is evidence that altering or removing the prohibition order would not constitute an undue risk to the community.

Applications

Applications for the cancellation or modification of a driving prohibition order will be directed to National Parole Board, Clemency and Pardons Division, which will be responsible for investigations including contact with the appropriate provincial licensing authority.

Voting

Two members will vote on each case. Should the members reviewing an application determine that an interview should be conducted prior to a decision being rendered, that interview should be conducted in accordance with the Board's Interview Guidelines for Clemency and Pardons.

Cross Reference

Criminal Code of Canada, subsection 259(1)

Interview Guidelines for Clemency and Pardons.

Effective Date

July 1, 1993.

14. Clemency and Pardons

14.1 Pardons

Legislative reference

Criminal Records Act . subsections 4.1(1) and (2), 4.2(4), 7 and 7.2.

Preamble

The Criminal Records Act (CRA) authorizes the National Parole Board to grant or refuse to grant pardons to persons convicted of offences under federal acts and regulations and to revoke a pardon or, under specific circumstances, declare that a pardon ceases to have effect.

A pardon is evidence that the conviction should no longer reflect negatively on a person’s character. In support of this statement, the CRA restricts access to records under federal jurisdiction and removes any disqualifications that would result from a conviction. With regards to employment, the CRA specifies that information about pardoned offences shall not be sought in the employment applications of organizations under federal jurisdiction. In addition, the Canadian Human Rights Act forbids federal agencies and departments to discriminate against an individual based on a pardoned record.

Purpose

To guide Board members in pardon decision-making.

Policy

Good conduct

For the purpose of the CRA, good conduct is defined as behaviour that is consistent with and demonstrates a law-abiding lifestyle.

Guidelines for assessing good conduct

For the purpose of determining good conduct in decision-making, the Board will consider all relevant and reliable information provided by the applicant and criminal justice entities including:

• information about an incident that resulted in a charge that was subsequently withdrawn, stayed, or dismissed, or that resulted in a peace bond, in the use of alternative measures or in the acquittal of the applicant;
  The relevance of this information increases where the charge or charges are of a serious nature, and/or are related to convictions on the record for which the pardon is requested. With regards to a peace bond or the use of alternative measures (ex. community service work), adherence to the conditions, the date on which the conditions were imposed and the date of the originating incident should also be taken into account;
• any record of absolute or conditional discharges;
• information about convictions under provincial statutes.
  The importance of this information depends on the nature, the number and the date of the infraction, and/or whether or not it is similar to the past criminal activity of the individual;
• information provided by law enforcement agencies about suspected or alleged criminal behaviour;
• representations provided by, or on behalf of, the applicant;
• any information submitted to the Board by others with knowledge of the case.
  The Board does not consider anonymous information unless there is more than one complaint which is relevant to the Board’s decision-making. Relevance is determined by the nature of the complaints, the number of the complaints and/or the timing of the complaints.
• with respect to applicants convicted of a sex offence prosecuted by way of indictment, any information received from law enforcement agencies further to enquiries made by the Board.

Revocation of a pardon based on subsequent conviction for an offence punishable on summary conviction

When determining whether to revoke a pardon where the individual is subsequently convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction under a federal act or its regulations, the Board will consider all relevant information, including:

• information that suggests a significant disregard for public safety and order and/or laws and regulations (see Guidelines for assessing good conduct), given the offender’s criminal history;
• whether the offence is consistent with the offence for which the pardon was received; and
• the time period since satisfaction of all sentences.

Voting requirements

Decisions will be made by one Board member, unless the applicant has been convicted of a sex offence, in which case two Board members will make the decision. Board members who propose to either deny a pardon, to revoke a pardon, or to cease a pardon, will set out in writing the reasons for the proposal.

If representations are received, the final decision as to whether or not to refuse to grant a pardon, to revoke a pardon, or to cease a pardon, will be made by different Board members.

If, after receiving representations, the decision is to grant a pardon, to deny a pardon, to revoke a pardon or to cease a pardon, the Board members will set out in writing the reasons for the decision.

In all cases requiring two votes, both members must be in agreement. If agreement cannot be reached, the case will be referred to two Board members who did not participate in the initial review.

Cases where there may be representations by or on behalf of the applicant

If the Board proposes either to refuse to grant a pardon, to revoke a pardon or to cease a pardon, the review will not proceed for at least 60 days following notification to the applicant, unless representations are received at an earlier date.

If the Board authorizes that representations may be made orally, the representations may be heard by way of an in-person hearing in the national office of the Board or in one of the Board’s regional offices.

Guidelines for determining whether to hold a hearing

The Board may conduct a review by way of a hearing, if the Vice-Chairperson, Appeal Division, believes it is desirable to do so based on an assessment of any relevant factor, including:

• where there is information that suggests that the applicant has had involvement with the police since the last conviction; or
• where it is necessary to clarify information provided by the applicant.

Cross References

Pardons application procedure document
NPB Policy Manual:
9.2 Hearings (section on video-conferencing)
14.3 Hearing Guidelines for Clemency and Pardons

Implementation Date

2010-08-06

14.2 Royal Prerogative of Mercy

Legislative reference

Section 110 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Letters Patent, and sections 748, 748.1 and 749 of the Criminal Code.

Background

The Royal Prerogative of Mercy originates in the ancient power vested in the British monarch who had the absolute right to exercise mercy on any subject. In Canada, similar powers of executive clemency have been given to the Governor General who, as the Queen's representative, may exercise the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. It is largely an unfettered discretionary power to apply exceptional remedies, under exceptional circumstances, to deserving cases.

Purpose

The present document constitutes the Minister's guidelines to the National Parole Board. to assess the merits of clemency applications, and to determine whether to recommend to the Solicitor General that an act of clemency be granted.

Authority and power

Governor General of Canada – Letters Patent

The power to exercise the Royal Prerogative of Mercy for federal offenses is vested in the Governor General of Canada by virtue of the Letters Patent, constituting that office. In practice, the Governor General will grant an act of clemency only after receiving the advice of the Solicitor General of Canada, or that of at least one other minister.

The Governor General may grant two types of pardons, free pardons and conditional pardons, and may also grant respites from the execution of a sentence. In addition, sentences, as well as fines, penalties or forfeitures "due and payable to the Queen in right of Canada", may be remitted by the Governor General.

Governor in Council – Criminal Code

Sections 748 and 748.1 of the Criminal Code authorize the Governor in Council to grant free or conditional pardons, and to order the remission of pecuniary penalties, fines and forfeitures imposed under an act of Parliament. The exercise of these powers is considered by the Federal Cabinet on the advice of the Solicitor General of Canada, or that of at least one other minister.

In practice, requests for executive clemency are processed under the Letters Patent constituting the Office of the Governor General of Canada only when it is not legally possible to proceed under the Criminal Code. Therefore, with the exception of respites, relief from prohibitions and remissions of sentence, all positive recommendations are forwarded to the Federal Cabinet for a decision under the provisions of the Criminal Code, rather than to the Governor General of Canada.

Principles guiding the exercise of clemency

The Royal Prerogative of Mercy is exercised according to general principles which are meant to provide for a fair and equitable process, while ensuring that it is granted only in very exceptional and truly deserving cases.

In reviewing clemency applications, conducting investigations and making recommendations, the National Parole Board shall be guided by the following principles.

There must be evidence of substantial injustice or undue hardship.

Neither the Governor General nor the Governor in Council intervene on technical grounds. Therefore, in order for executive clemency to be invoked on the basis of an injustice, there must be clear evidence of a substantial injustice.

Similarly, undue hardship, which includes suffering of a mental, physical and/or financial nature, must be out of proportion to the nature and the seriousness of the offense and the resulting consequences, and must be more severe than for other individuals in similar situations.

In general terms, the notions of injustice and hardship imply that the suffering which is being experienced could not be foreseen at the time the sentence was imposed. In addition, there must be clear evidence that the injustice and/or the hardship exceed the normal consequences of a conviction and sentence.

The exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is concerned solely with the applicant.

Each application will be examined on its own merits, taking into consideration the circumstances of the individual applicant. Consideration will not be given to the hardship of anyone else who may be affected by the applicant's situation, nor will it be considered posthumously.

The exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is not intended to circumvent other existing legislation.

In order for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to be invoked, the applicant must have exhausted all other avenues available under the Criminal Code, or other pertinent legislation.

In addition, an act of executive clemency will not be considered where the difficulties experienced by an individual applicant result from the normal consequences of the application of the law.

Furthermore, the Royal Prerogative of Mercy will not be considered as a mechanism to review the merits of existing legislation, or those of the justice system in general.

The independence of the judiciary shall be respected.

The exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy will not interfere with a court's decision when to do so would result in the mere substitution of the discretion of the Governor General, or the Governor in Council, for that of the courts. There must exist clear and strong evidence of an error in law, of excessive hardship and/or inequity, beyond that which could have been foreseen at the time of the conviction and sentencing.

The Royal Prerogative of Mercy should be applied in exceptional circumstances only.

The Royal Prerogative of Mercy is intended only for rare cases in which consideration of justice, humanity and compassion override the normal administration of justice. It should be applied only where there exist no other remedies, where remedies are not lawfully available in a particular case, or where recourse to them would result in greater hardship.

The exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, by its very nature, should not result in an increased penalty.

When considering the merits of an individual case, the decision should not, in any way, increase the penalty for the applicant.

Specific remedies and criteria

In addition to the general principles which guide the National Parole Board in assessing the merits of clemency applications, each form of relief is assessed against some specific criteria.

Free Pardon

Definition

A free pardon is a formal recognition that a person was erroneously convicted of an offence. Any consequence resulting from the conviction, such as fines, prohibitions or forfeitures will be cancelled upon the grant of a free pardon. In addition, any record of the conviction will be erased from the police and court records, and from any other official data banks.

Criteria

The sole criterion upon which an application for a free pardon may be entertained is that of the innocence of the convicted person.

In order for a free pardon to be considered, the applicant must have exhausted all appeal mechanisms available under the Criminal Code, or other pertinent legislation. In addition, the applicant must provide new evidence, which was not available to the courts at the time the conviction was registered, or at the time the appeal was processed, to clearly establish innocence.

Authority

Governor in Council and Governor General.

Conditional Pardon – prior to eligibility under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA)

Definition

A conditional pardon – prior to eligibility under the CCRA is the release of an inmate from incarceration into the community, under supervision and subject to conditions, until the expiration of the sentence imposed by the court.

Criteria

Inherent to any sentence of incarceration is the notion of hardship which is meant to act as a punishment for the convicted offender, and as a deterrent for potential offenders. The limitations to one's freedom and to one's rights to participate fully as a member of the community, the distance and often the isolation from one's family and friends, are the direct consequences of a sentence of imprisonment and of the crime which resulted in the imposition of such a penalty.

CSC is responsible for the care and custody of inmates as stipulated in section 5(a) of the CCRA and that responsibility includes caring for the medical problems of all offenders, irrespective of their seriousness. Whereas illness or deteriorating health may cause hardship, it does not, in itself, constitute a sufficient reason to grant a conditional pardon in advance of eligibility for conditional release under the CCRA. For this exceptional measure to be invoked, serious medical problems would be considered as one of many factors.

In order for a conditional pardon to be granted prior to eligibility under the CCRA, the inmate must be ineligible for any other form of release under the CCRA, and the release should not, in any manner, put the community at risk of the offender's re-offending. In addition, there must exist substantial evidence of excessive inequity, substantial injustice or undue hardship which would be out of proportion to the nature and seriousness of the offense and the resulting consequences, and more severe than for other individuals in similar situations.

Authority

Governor in Council and Governor General.

Conditional Pardon – in advance of eligibility under the Criminal Records Act (CRA)

Definition

A conditional pardon in advance of eligibility under the CRA has the same meaning and effect as a pardon granted under the provisions of the CRA.

Criteria

Possessing a criminal record is the normal consequence of having been found guilty or convicted of a crime. A criminal record may limit access to careers, to employment, to travel and, in itself, may result in a certain amount of hardship.

In order for a conditional pardon to be granted in advance of the eligibility under the CRA, the applicant must be currently ineligible for a pardon under the CRA. In addition, such a pardon may be considered only when there is evidence of good conduct, within the meaning of the CRA, and consistent with the policies of the National Parole Board in these matters. Finally, there must be substantial evidence of undue hardship, out of proportion to the nature of the offence and more severe than for other individuals in similar situations.

Authority

Governor in Council and Governor General.

Remission of sentence

Definition

A remission of sentence amounts to the erasing of all, or part of, a sentence imposed by the court.

Criteria

Consistent with the principle that the independence of the judiciary must be respected, a remission of sentence may be considered only where there exists evidence of: an error in law; a substantial inequity, such as a change in legislation which had unintended and unanticipated consequences for a person convicted and sentenced; or undue hardship which would be out of proportion to the nature and seriousness of the offence and more severe than for other individuals in similar situations.

Authority

Governor General.

Remission of fine, forfeiture, estreated bails and pecuniary penalties

Definition

A remission of a fine, a forfeiture, an estreated bail or a pecuniary penalty amounts to the erasing of all, or part of, the penalty imposed by the court.

Criteria

In order for such penalties to be remitted, there must exist substantial evidence of undue hardship, due to circumstances or factors unknown to the court that imposed the sanction, or which occurred subsequent to the imposition of the sanction by the court. In addition, consideration will be given to whether the grant of a remission would result in hardship to another person.

Authority

Governor in Council and Governor General.

Respite

Definition

Respite is the interruption of the execution of a sentence.

Criteria

In order for a respite in the execution of the sentence to be considered, there must be substantial evidence that failure to grant such an act of clemency would result in undue hardship, or create an inequity. In addition, the granting of a respite should not place the community at risk of the offender's re-offending.

Authority

Governor General.

Relief from prohibitions

Definition

A relief from a prohibition is the removal or the alteration of a prohibition, imposed by the court as a result of a conviction.

Criteria

A prohibition may be removed or altered where there is substantial evidence that the prohibition is causing undue hardship to the applicant and that altering or removing the prohibition would not place that community at risk of the offender's re-offending.

Authority

Governor General.

Note

Pursuant to section 109 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the National Parole Board may, under some circumstances, cancel or vary a portion of a driving prohibition order made under section 259(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code. Consistent with the principle that the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is not intended to circumvent any other existing legislation, such recourse may only be invoked for driving prohibitions where the applicant is otherwise ineligible under the provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Cancellation of a remedy

All remedies described above are subject to cancellation if the application was granted on the basis of information which is subsequently found to have been fraudulent.

All remedies, with the exception of free pardons, may be cancelled if any condition under which they are granted is subsequently breached.

14.3 Hearing Guidelines for Clemency and Pardons

Authority

Criminal Records Act,
Sections 109 & 110, Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Purpose

To provide guidance to Board members conducting hearings: for pardons under the Criminal Records Act (CRA); in relation to an application for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy; or in relation to an application to cancel or vary the unexpired portion of an order of prohibition from driving.

Background

Under the provisions of the CRA, when the Board proposes either to refuse to grant or to revoke a pardon based on an assessment of good conduct, the individual affected may make written or oral representations to the Board before a final decision is made. Oral representations are made in a hearing with one Board member, unless the original decision was made by two Board members. As well, the Board may conduct a hearing in relation to applications for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy and for applications to cancel or vary the unexpired portion of an order of prohibition from driving.

Guidelines for hearings

• The Board respects the duty to act fairly in all its decision-making and responds appropriately to the particular needs and special circumstances of each application.
• A hearing permits an applicant to respond to the information that the Board has or will be considering and allows the opportunity to provide additional information, or to clarify specific issues.
• A hearing may be conducted at the request of the applicant if the Board proposes:
  • to refuse to grant a pardon or to revoke a pardon;
  • to make a negative recommendation to the Minister with regard to an application under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy; or
  • not to cancel or vary an order of prohibition from driving.
• The Board members will normally begin by briefly clarifying the purpose of the hearing and will provide the applicant the opportunity to present new information, to clarify information the Board had relied upon, or to make general observations.
• The applicant should be given every reasonable opportunity to seek advice from an assistant and the assistant will have an opportunity to speak directly to the Board members before the hearing is concluded.
• The hearing will be conducted in the official language chosen by the applicant.
• The Board members will normally advise the applicant of its decision and reasons at the hearing and will provide a written decision and reasons within a reasonable period.
• If necessary, the Board members may conclude the hearing and make a decision at a later date.

Cross references

NPB Policy Manual:

9.2 Hearings (section on video conferencing)

14.1 Pardons

14.2 Royal Prerogative of Mercy

Minister’s Directive on the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, signed March 17, 1993.

Implementation Date

2009-01-29

Annex A

Annex A – Amendments to NPB Policy Manual

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 5

2.3 – Psychological and Psychiatric Assessments

The meaning of "persistent violence" under the heading Psychological Assessments is amended to read – a history of three or more convictions for a Schedule I offence.

2.4 – Eligibilities

Eligibility tables are amended to reflect the changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act made pursuant to Bill C-55.

3.1 – Unescorted temporary absence

An amendment was made under the heading Personal development for rehabilitative purposes to reflect that 60-day UTA programs must be renewed by way of a review for each additional period of 60 days.

3.2 – Escorted temporary absence

Amendments were made to make it consistent with and reflect recent amendments to the CSC ETA policy.

4.3 – Accelerated review

The section on Day parole prior to accelerated review is deleted. It is no longer needed given the legislative amendment governing accelerated day parole review.

6 – Detention

An amendment is made to the section Withdrawal of referral to clarify the policy as stipulated in a legal opinion on the issue.

7.1 – Release conditions

The complete policy is revised.

8.1 – Post release interventions

The complete policy is revised.

8.3 – Offenders with a long-term supervision order

This interim policy establishes policies governing the responsibilities of the National Parole Board with respect to offenders designated by the courts as long-term offenders during the long-term supervision part of their sentence.

9.1 – Reviews

This policy amendment clarifies the original intent of the policy.

9.2.1 – Elder Assisted Hearings

This is a new policy of the Board related to the provision of Elder assisted hearings.

9.3 – Observers at hearings

An amendment is made to the policy adding a section Media requests for attendance at hearings.

11.1 – Records of proceedings

An amendment is made to the policy adding a section CSC access to voice recorded proceedings.

11.2 – Decision registry

A minor amendment is made to the policy to clarify when a person may have access to a decision in the decision registry.

12 – Appeals

An amendment is made to the policy on "Appealable Decisions" reflecting that an offender can appeal a decision of the Board to impose a residency condition as a condition of parole.

14.3 – Interview Guidelines for Clemency and Pardons

This is a policy that was omitted by error from the previous version of the NPB policy manual dated June 1993.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 6 (amendments to Vol. 1 No. 5)

2.1.1 – Offenders with an Indeterminate Sentence, Dangerous Offenders and Dangerous Sexual Offenders

This is a new policy of the Board related to the requirements of the Steele Court decision.

2.3 – Psychological and Psychiatric Assessments

The policy under the heading of "Exceptions" is amended pursuant to a decision by Executive Committee on 1998-05-13 (see Policy Circular 1998-3) related to a psychological assessment not being required if a psychiatric assessment is available.

2.4 – Eligibilities

The tables are amended to reflect the Court decision in McCABE wherein the Board no longer makes recommendations to CSC.

3.2 – Escorted Temporary Absence

The policy is amended to reflect the Court decision in McCABE wherein the Board no longer makes recommendations to CSC.

4.1 – Day Parole

The policy is up-dated to reflect the decision of the Federal Court, Trial Division, rendered on October 18, 1999 in the LARSEN matter.

4.3 – Accelerated review

The policy is amended to reflect changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act made in July 1997 incorporating an accelerated review process for day parole.

5 – Statutory release

This policy was amended by adding a requirement to conduct a review by way of a hearing when considering the imposition of residency condition on statutory release.

7.1 – Release conditions

The policy is amended by emphasizing that an offender has the right to make representations to the Board whenever conditions are varied or added by the Board and emphasizing that if the Board imposes a special condition when the offender is in the community, it should be based on triggering behaviour that relates to an increase in level of risk since release.

7.1 – Release conditions – out-of-country travel

This new policy provides guidelines for out-of-country travel.

8.3 – Offenders with a long-term supervision order

The policy is amended by adding a requirement for a hearing when reviewing a case to determine whether to impose a condition of residency.

9.2 – Hearings by teleconference

This is a new policy of the Board related to holding hearings by teleconference.

9.2 – Review of provincial offenders whose offence resulted in death

This is a new policy of the Board that establishes the requirement for a hearing and the quorum.

9.3 – Observers at hearings

An amendment is made to the English version making it consistent with the French version by stating that normally, persons under the age of eighteen will not be allowed to attend as observers.

9.9 – Scheduling of Board members for reviews

This is a new policy of the Board related to the scheduling of Board members for reviews.

10.3 – Information from victims

This policy was amended by providing victims with the opportunity to present a statement at NPB hearings.

11.2 – Registry of decisions

The following statement is repealed: "Access to case specific decisions, including decisions from a previous sentence, is allowed only when the offender is under sentence or is subject to a long-term supervision order."

12 – Appeals

This policy is amended by making appealable decisions to impose special conditions and by stipulating how offenders will be advised of the right to appeal a decision of the Board.

14.1 – Clemency and Pardons

Policy statements are added to the policy under a new heading "Satisfaction of sentence" outlining circumstances under which a sentence should be considered to be satisfied.

Other general and technical changes to the policy are being made in view of the proclamation on August 1, 2000 of Bill C-7 and to clean up some of the wording. Moreover, the annex of offences has been removed and is replaced by a reference to Schedules I & II of the CCRA.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 7 (amendments to Vol. 1 No. 6)

1.2 – Conditional release decision making (2004-03-08)

2.1 – Assessment for pre-release decisions – Decision-making criteria and processes (2004-03-08)

9.2.1 – Cultural Hearings (2004-03-08)

These policies were amended to reflect that Board policies be inclusive and responsive to the needs of Aboriginal offenders and other groups with special requirements. New information, e.g., the addition of family violence as relevant information, was added.

The policies were also streamlined and duplication of information was eliminated.

9.2 – Hearings (2004-03-08)

The amendment provides that, on a case by case basis, Board members and staff may be present during the deliberation part of the hearing process for training purposes.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 7A (amendments to Vol. 1 No. 7)

14.1 – Pardons (2005-01-17)

Amendments:

• clarify the definition of good conduct;
• provide guidance to Board Members regarding pardon-related decision-making;
• remove procedures related to the processing of pardons from the Policy Manual.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 7B

8.3 – Offenders with a Long-term Supervision Order (2005-09-19)

The section on hearing requirements was amended.

9.2.1 – Cultural Hearings (2005-10-17)

The amendment provides clarification of who can have a Cultural Hearing with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor of those non-aboriginal offenders making requests for these hearings.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 8

The following policies were amended in response to recommendations from various Boards of Investigation reports and to implement the decision to terminate the release maintained process. Subtantive changes to each policy are highlighted below.

1.2 – Conditional Release Decision-Making (2006-05-31)

Changes relate to the section on Information Standards.

2.1 – Assessment for Pre-Release Decisions âˆ' Decision-Making Criteria and Process (2006-05-31)

Changes reflect the need for Board members to review all relevant aspects of an offender's case, including the concrete results and treatment gains achieved by the offender; any benefits derived by the offender during a period of re-incarceration following revocation; and issues around violent behaviour. The decision and reasons should also reflect any information obtained orally during the hearing.

2.2 – Hallmarks of Quality Decision-Making (2006-05-31)

Changes provide that a quality decision reflects all relevant aspects of a case and patterns of behaviour over time; that concrete results and treatment gains be assessed as well as conducts relating to previous suspensions/revocations.

3.1 – Unescorted Temporary Absence (2006-04-24 and 2006-05-31)

The term "limited" day parole was removed. Further changes were made for consistency with the other policy amendments listed here.

4.2 – Full Parole (2006-05-31)

Changes reflect the need to focus on measurable results attained from interventions and all relevant aspects of a case, including patterns of behaviour.

7.1 – Release Conditions (2006-05-31)

Changes reflect the decision to terminate the release maintained process.

8.1 – Post Release Interventions (2006-05-31)

Changes reflect the decision to terminate the release maintained process. Board members are also directed to review and analyze any dissenting votes from previous decisions; take into consideration the time during which the offender was unlawfully at large; that the number and nature of revocations be considered as well as what the offender did to modify any risk factors during a period of re-incarceration following revocation.

9.2.1 – Cultural Hearings (2006-05-31)

Change to the policy emphasizes that all decision-making policies apply to the policy on Cultural Hearings.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 9

7.1 – Release Conditions (2006-10-18)

The section of the policy related to out-of-country travel is modified to provide additional guidance to Board members.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 10

5 – Statutory Release (2007-03-21)

The modification allows the Board to address the issue of conditions on the new statutory release date, if that date is within nine months of the post-release hearing.

8.3 – Long-Term Supervision Orders (2007-03-21)

Modifications reflect the outcome of Court decisions; to increase the maximum duration of a condition to reside and to eliminate the need for a hearing to remove this condition. Technical amendments have been made providing authority to grant emergency medical and compassionate leave when the offender is under a residency condition and modifying the format, grammar and style for consistency with other policy documents.

9.1 – Reviews (2007-04-04)

Changes were required to bring the policy in line with subsection 123(5) of the CCRA.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 11

6 – Detention (2007-05-22)

The policy is amended for consistency with the CCRA and to allow for emergency medical or compassionate leave for offenders with a residency condition following detention.

10.2 – Disclosure to Victims

The policy amendments ensure that a person claiming to be the victim of an offender is indeed the victim of that offender and to ensure consistency between the French and English texts.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 12

9.2 – Hearings (2007-08-28)

Hallmarks of a Quality Hearing were added to the policy to guide Board members in their responsibility for the conduct and integrity of the hearing and in professionally managing the decision-making process.

9.2.1 – Hearings for Aboriginal Offenders (2007-08-28)

The policy now focuses solely on hearings for Aboriginal Offenders – thus the change in the title of the policy. The term Aboriginal Cultural Advisor is replaced by Elder/Advisor and it is clarified that a cultural ceremony should only be conducted if the offender requests it.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 13

9.2 – Hearings (2008-01-10)

A new section: Video conferencing at hearings was added to the policy. Modifications were also made for consistency within the policy and with other policy documents.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 14

4.3 – Accelerated Review (2008-05-09)

It was agreed that the policy reflect the wording of the CCRA with regard to the test for determining the likelihood of committing an offence involving violence and that format/grammar and style modifications be consistent with other pre-release policies.

Further, the program participation criterion for assessing whether the offender is likely to commit an offence involving violence has been modified.

POLICY AMENDMENTS

14.1 – Pardons (2009-01-29)

14.3 – Hearing Guidelines For Clemency And Pardons (2009-01-29)

The above-noted policies have been amended to reflect the application of more stringent measures to the pardon application process involving persons convicted of sexual offences.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 14A

8.1 – Post Release Interventions (2009-03-31)

A change has been made to the policy to expand on the assessment of risk factors to consider during post-release.

9.2 – Hearings (2009-03-30)

This policy was revised to address the issue of who would participate by videoconferencing. The current policy refers to “key players” which was unclear. Therefore, the amended version is more precise.

11.1 – Records of proceedings (2009-03-30)

The policy now indicates that voice recordings be retained in the same fashion as other offenders file information, both electronic and paper.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 15

5 – Statutory Release (2009-09-10)

The policy has been amended to reflect the discontinuation of holding hearings when imposing a residency condition for statutory release.

10.2 – Disclosure to victims (2009-09-10)

The policy has been amended to reflect the expansion of the authority for disclosure to include all Regional Communications Officers.

Electronic Version – Vol. 1 No. 16

14.1 - Clemency and Pardons–(2010-08-06)

Pardons will no longer be referred to as being issued for summary offences. Similar to indictable offences, they will be granted.

The number of Board members will increase to two in cases where the applicant has been convicted of a sex offence and prosecuted summarily.